Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In its current form, the opposition will be opposing this bill, and we will be seeking to amend it. This bill is profoundly important. It's profoundly important because it will determine the processes around the most significant decision that voters will have confronted in over two decades: changing their Constitution, our nation's foundational document.

Constitutional referenda are governed by section 128 of the Australian Constitution and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. This bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, will prepare and update the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 ahead of a referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which is expected during this term of parliament. More importantly, it will set a precedent for all future referenda on the Constitution.

As difficult as this may be, this parliament should treat the changes to the machinery of referenda without consideration of what the referendum question might be, this time or the next. On principle, the principle must be that in any referendum everyone should be able to put their case and the parliament should facilitate a balanced and fair debate of that question, whatever the question is. In the debate that we've had on this bill and on the proposed referendum on the voice, we've had many references back to the last referendum on a republic. People have referred to how this particular operation was conducted or how the framing of the question was done in such and such a way.

That referendum occurred more than two decades ago, but there is a strong reason why people remember that event and have very strong views on how it was conducted. They are fundamental to how we govern ourselves as people, and people are passionate about these issues. Certainly, rules need to be updated—we have no question about that—but this isn't like an AFL game, which might see a rule change between seasons to address issues of flooding or tanking. These are rules that keep balance, fairness, legitimacy and trust in how we change our founding document.

Evidence presented to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters referred to the conduct of referenda from right back to the beginning of the last century. Since the introduction of the referendum pamphlet back in 1912, there have been only three occasions where a pamphlet has not been provided. A pamphlet has been distributed in every referendum since 1928. The three referenda without an official pamphlet, in 1919, 1926 and 1928, had good reason. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet prior to the conduct of the referendum post World War I. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to argue or produce the yes argument. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between the parties and governments of all levels.

The AEC provided evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that a pamphlet for all households would be expected to cost around $10 million and noted that around 40 per cent of Australians rely on the printed material that the commission provides to households in the conduct of their vote at every election. The government initially said that this was a bad, outdated idea and that we should provide voters with information about the issue on which they were voting. To their credit, the government did listen to the arguments put forward by the opposition, and we note that they have now announced that they will move amendments to restore this pamphlet.

The reasons for this are simple. How we change our Constitution is as important as the change itself. How we change our Constitution should be blind to what that change might be. In the other place, the Attorney-General told members:

The government intends for voters to have an experience at this upcoming referendum that is consistent with their experience at the last federal election.

This bill reflects that, in the time between our last referendum and today, we've seen updates to donation regimes and disclosure regimes, and the introduction of a foreign donation ban and foreign interference laws. We all agree that these changes are now part of our electoral process and the expectations of voters at every election, but this bill doesn't address some of the core structural elements that are present at elections—elements that have not been provided by government. Just as the retention of the pamphlet will strengthen this bill, we need to recognise that for any referendum to be successful we need to provide the tools for the system to operate with integrity. We should certainly not divert from past practice where it would create uncertainty and when it would create mistrust. And we should take all measures available to us to ensure that the process is as robust as it can be and that voters have as much information as needed, and trust in the system, and about the choice that they are being asked to make.

We do support the modernisation of the act insofar as it updates regulations on donations and expenditure for referendum campaigns and imposes reporting obligations. We support the legislative modernisations campaign contained in the bill. We support the ban on foreign donations, the ban on foreign campaigners—measures we introduced into the electoral system when we were in government. However, making these changes to the referendum act without understanding what is needed to operate them successfully is at best hopelessly optimistic and at worst ignorant of the consequences that it will cause. At any electoral event there are structures in place to manage the regulation of our new donations in foreign interference regimes. We have registered political parties, we have significant third parties and we have other participants who are required to register with the AEC, and all of this helps our regulators within our agencies manage the pressures that are placed upon our systems as we go through the often impassioned process of public debate. But because referenda occur so infrequently and occur on matters that aren't often consistent across party lines we don't have these reliable structures for these systems to work. This is why the opposition will move to include provisions for the nomination of official yes and no organisations for a referendum. Again, we approach this not with reference to the question that may be put later this year, but with a reflection on the fact that all referenda may need this provision and this mechanism going forward.

The regulatory auditing process to administer these regulatory schemes would be assisted greatly by having official campaigns to provide a starting point for enforcement and education by the AEC. For a process that's as important and for an outcome as significant as what the government itself is calling for, this is a minimal provision to assist in a strong process for change. We are supportive of the regulatory framework for our elections to apply to our referenda, so let's not then leave regulators with a free-for-all process, impossible to supervise and monitor—with the rigor that Australians expect of them at an election.

Under the government's model we would see that free-for-all of participants who will be captured by the donations and disclosures regime at the referendum. As the joint standing committee heard, there is potential for organisations and individuals to be unaware that their current or previous activities relating to the Voice will be captured under that regulatory scheme. The AEC stated in evidence that donations and disclosure regimes remain one of the most complex areas of the Electoral Act. It is complex enough that even the regular participants, political parties that are active at every election, still get it wrong. What's worse we will see that the regulatory regime is applied to a one-off electoral event and we'll only find out the extent of the success of that regime after the event, potentially months after the event and certainly after the outcome has been implemented.

As the AEC has said to educate the number of participants on their responsibilities and obligations will be a significant body of work. An official campaign structure will at the very least provide a starting point for the AEC's efforts in coordinating education on the responsibilities of organisations and individuals participating in the referendum campaign, as well as providing a head start on the integrity measures that Australians should expect from a properly conducted electoral event.

The requirement to guard against foreign interference is also paramount. Only recently Canada's government announced an inquiry into allegations that a state actor interfered in their 2021 election. We should remember that we're not immune to this in Australia. It has been publicly reported that our own major political parties were hacked by state-sponsored actors. We shouldn't wait to wonder what could have been done after that happens at a referendum. We should act now and provide the structure that will ensure that our agencies can work with participants against foreign interference.

It's clear that if we're to have strong processes for this referendum we should be ensuring that there is a structure in place for those processes and the regulatory bodies to start their work. In doing so, we should fund official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations to ensure that they have the administration in place to be able to adhere to the laws that we're about to pass. That's why the opposition will move amendments to require that the nominated official 'yes' and 'no' organisations be provided equal funding to operate and administer themselves under the regime—note that the words are 'operate' and 'administer', not 'advertise' and not 'campaign'.

As the current Attorney-General stated in his final report on the referendum machinery provisions in 2009, when he argued for equal funding of the 'yes' and 'no' cases, irrespective of parliamentary support, he said:

This is in line with the original intention of the Yes/No pamphlet as well as consistent with democratic ideals of informed debate.

That's from the current Attorney-General. We would encourage the minister and the government to consider these very reasonable changes that the coalition has put forward to ensure a referendum that has informed voters and a system that has integrity and trust, a system that will return a referendum that Australians deserve, whatever the outcome may be.

This bill represents a very significant update to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, and the parliament should consider that these changes reflect how we go about changing our national document, not only today but also in the future. This was the lens through which the coalition looked at the referendum machinery bill—not what the question being asked is going to be but what questions may be asked in the future and what Australians expect and deserve in a referendum process.

To that, I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the Government:

(a) establishes official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations for the purpose of the referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; and

(b) puts into place financial arrangements to provide for equal funding for those organisations".

This amendment would delay the consideration of the bill until such time as it reflects a stronger and more balanced approach to conducting a referendum. This is something that the Senate should consider carefully. The decisions on this bill will set the precedent for all referenda into the future. It's what Australians expect. It's what Australians deserve. It's a referendum machinery that is separate from the question that is being asked. It's a referendum machinery that puts legitimacy and trust into the electoral process. It minimises the chances of foreign donations appearing in a referendum. It minimises the chances of electoral laws that we expect, that we require and that we demand being broken. It minimises the chances of foreign interference in a process that is so important, not just in elections but particularly so when we are changing our foundation document, the Constitution.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, which provides the framework for how referenda are conducted, and we welcome many of the reforms in this bill to update that framework. We will be supporting this bill, but we would like to see that framework strengthened and we'll be moving amendments to strengthen it in many very important ways.

I want to say at the outset that this bill presents an opportunity to improve franchisement, particularly for First Nations communities, and that is an opportunity that should not be missed. On-the-day enrolment with provisional voting and expanding remote polling programs and phone voting for those unable to get to a polling booth will increase the number of people who are able to cast a vote. That's why the Greens are moving amendments to do all of those things. We want First Nations people to have the maximum opportunity to have a vote on whether they have a voice. I'll talk more about this shortly, but all referendum decisions are historic, and engaging the highest number of people in decision-making is an outcome that we should be striving for when it comes to historic reforms. Let's get this right, starting now. This is not about stacking the deck for an outcome on the Voice referendum; it's in fact a timely opportunity to redress the decades of First Nations disenfranchisement and to ensure that people who have a clear stake in the outcome of a referendum are able to exercise their right to vote.

Now to the details of this bill. In the past 10 years the parliament has conducted several inquiries into constitutional reforms and referenda. Those inquiries have recommended a comprehensive suite of reforms, including aligning referendum laws with broader electoral laws, removing the restriction on government's funding of education and promotion campaigns, modernising the way information about the 'yes' and the 'no' case is distributed, and establishing an independent expert panel to advise on the wording of referendum questions and information campaigns.

This bill does only some of those things. Many submitters to the earlier inquiries emphasised the need for comprehensive, objective review of referendum machinery, separate from the rush of an impending referendum, and the Greens strongly agree. But here we are. Referendums are about constitutional change and about fundamental democratic reforms. Beyond giving a voice to First Nations people, future referenda will determine whether Australia becomes a republic and whether we remove the restrictions on running for parliament that ignore the multicultural background of so many Australians.

So, the Greens believe that we do need more-comprehensive reforms to the Referendum Act to make it fit for the challenge of those future referendums. But, for now, we would like to see improvements proposed in this bill and the amendments proposed to it enacted before the upcoming referendum. We welcome the introduction of donation disclosure provisions for referendum campaigns. This bill would align referendum disclosure obligations with the Commonwealth Electoral Act obligations. However, the government has failed to acknowledge that those existing Commonwealth Electoral Act obligations are woeful. They are incredibly inadequate. We have long called for political donations of more than $1,000 to be disclosed in real time so that voters can see who is funding campaigns. The last time I checked, that was in fact Labor's own policy. We'll be moving an amendment to lower the disclosure threshold to $1,000 and to increase the frequency of disclosure. We hope the government supports us in improving transparency for all political donations.

I said earlier that referendum machinery reform should be considered not only on the eve of a referendum. We also can't ignore the timing and the context of this bill. Alongside progress towards treaty and truth, the upcoming Voice referendum is a generational opportunity, and it will be critical in order to maximise the participation of all Australians in the vote. The Voice referendum is about giving First Nations people a say in the policies and programs that affect their lives. Without reforms, there is a real risk that many First Nations people may not get the chance to have their say on the Voice referendum itself. We want to give the Voice referendum the greatest chance of success. First Nations people will be the most directly affected by the outcome, so it's imperative that we do everything possible to ensure that their voices are heard in the vote.

This is not about giving anyone any new rights; it's simply about giving people the best chance to exercise their rights. And whilst enrolment amongst First Nations people has been increasing, it remains lower than in the non-Indigenous population. Many First Nations people who are not currently on the electoral roll and who may not have participated in recent elections could try to vote in the referendum and be turned away. On-the-day enrolment and provisional voting options like those proposed in the Greens amendments—which we'll come to in the committee stage of this bill—would allow voters, including but not only voters in First Nations communities, to attend a polling place, apply for immediate enrolment, and cast their vote. The vote would be done by declaration and added to the formal count only once the usual checks are made and the AEC has verified the enrolment is lawful.

There is no downside to this proposal. There is only an upside of enabling people to have their say on a policy that will affect them. This system has worked well in the Northern Territory for years, and it's had a positive impact on voter turnout. On-the-day enrolment, along with automatic enrolment and the current mailbag program to allow automatic enrolment for communities with centralised postal services, will maximise the number of people who are eligible to vote—and in a democracy we must constantly work towards ensuring that everyone can have their voice heard.

But even with efforts to increase First Nations enrolment, many voters, particularly in remote areas, may be effectively disenfranchised by the unpredictable, limited availability of mobile polling services. During the last election, some remote communities were visited by remote mobile polling units for only a few hours, and some missed out altogether. Communities received very little information about when polling places would be open, and many people missed out on voting as a result. We need to do better than that.

The government is moving amendments to extend the mobile remote polling period from 12 days to 19 days, and we welcome that as a positive first step. The AEC has confirmed to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, on which I sit, that this extension of time would significantly enhance their capacity to get to remote communities and give those communities enough notice of the opportunity to vote. The NT Electoral Commission report on the Daly by-election noted that, where a polling place in the Wadeye community was open for five days, there was a nearly 40 per cent increase in voter turnout compared with the previous by-election, when the polling place was open for only two days. Giving people in remote communities the best chance to have their say is an investment that we need to make.

The phone voting service trialled during COVID proved a very successful way of enfranchising voters who had no other way of casting their vote. The Greens support extending that option to provide a way for people at risk of missing out on voting to have their say, including voters in remote areas who can't get to a polling place, people with an unreliable postal service, people in care facilities or who are unexpectedly in hospital on referendum day, people impacted by climate disasters and overseas voters who can't get to an embassy. Phone voting would be used in rare circumstances only, but, particularly when it comes to foundational decisions about constitutional reform, Australians should be given the widest possible range of options to ensure their voices can be heard. That's why I'll move amendments to that effect as well. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has made similar recommendations, and the AEC has supported those calls. The government needs to act. We're pleased that they'll extend mobile remote polling, and we urge them to support on-the-day enrolment, provisional voting and phone voting so that all Australians can have a say. If the AEC is supportive, it's not clear what is stopping the government from acting.

There also needs to be a concerted effort to engage interpreters to assist voters at polling places to understand the voting process and to make sure that their vote can be counted. Interpreters play a critical role in translating material but also in reducing distrust in the process. Despite the clear benefits, the last election saw many communities without interpreters. The AEC needs to be funded to ensure that that situation is not repeated for the referendum, nor for any future elections. The Greens also believe that constitutional reforms are generational changes that will affect the lives of all Australians. Young people, particularly First Nations young people, will be impacted by the outcome of this upcoming referendum and deserve to have a say. We estimate that an additional 32,000 First Nations people would be able to vote if the voting age were lowered to 16. The Greens have a bill to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, and we urge the government to get behind that.

Lastly, I want to briefly talk about the pamphlet, which the government has now agreed to prepare. The Greens support some form of independent, objective information outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases being made available to the voting public. However, we acknowledge the many submitters who have questioned whether the pamphlet and the archaic way that it will be developed meet this objective. It's critical that all Australians are given access to resources to inform their decision. This is true of both elections and referendums. Any time we go to the voters and ask them to choose, the options must be clear. We've already seen the danger of misinformation and missing information in the current debate. Resources on any referendum must be accurate. Resources on this referendum must ensure that they don't misrepresent the implications of a voice, that they don't fearmonger or spout racist or discriminatory talking points and that they don't undermine the democratic process. We want a vote informed by robust discussion, where people can trust the information they get about the alternatives and where we get a result with integrity. We will be supporting measures called for by our crossbench colleagues to ensure that the pamphlet is clear, factual and developed in consultation with experts. We'll also support measures to ensure materials are available in appropriate formats and languages to reach all voters and continue to support calls for truth in political advertising campaigns in all elections going forward.

The Greens believe in democracy, and we want to see referendums conducted fairly and openly with transparency and respect. This bill goes some way towards that, and we will keep the pressure on the government to go further in electoral reforms in this term of parliament. We again urge the government to support Greens amendments that would actually allow First Nations voters to vote in this historic referendum about whether they have a voice to this parliament. Please don't miss that opportunity to increase the chances for people to have their voice heard, particularly on a matter that affects them, and to get this done in a timely way.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill provides the foundation for a fair and transparent referendum on a voice to parliament by the end of this year. As already noted, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act has not been used since 1999. It has not kept pace with the improvements we have made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act—improvements that ensure we have free, fair and democratic federal elections. The primary purpose of this bill is to replicate the improvements that have been made to the Electoral Act for this referendum and for referenda into the future. It will mean that the experience people have come to expect when they vote in a federal election will be the same as when they cast their vote on referendum day.

This will be one of the most significant votes most people will make in their lifetimes. Referenda are infrequent, but they are at the heart of our democracy. They provide Australians the opportunity to use their right to vote to consider changes to the Australian Constitution. The Constitution is an act of the Westminster parliament for the people of Australia, passed in 1901. Only the people of Australia, voting in a referendum, can change the Constitution. In that sense it is the Australian people's document. In the forthcoming referendum the Australian people will be asked if they support the principle of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution and whether they should have a say to the parliament and the executive on matters that affect them. The details of what the Voice is, how it functions and how it will influence change for the better will be dealt with by the parliament after further consultations with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

So what does this bill actually do? It seeks to update the laws governing the machinery of referenda. The last referendum was held without modern online systems, without social media and without email campaigns. It was also held without many of the rules and protections that have been built into the Electoral Act since then. Those incremental changes may not be obvious to many members of the public or even to many of us in this chamber, but they have become essential to the smooth running of the voting process. The important changes made by this bill will include banning foreign donations from the referendum campaign, allowing people to apply for a postal vote online rather than using a paper form, vote-saving measures so that the people's vote can be valid where their intentions are clear, enabling early sorting of pre-poll votes to support a timely result on the day, extending protections to prevent multiple voting, updating authorisation rules so voters know who is behind political materials and extending contingency measures to enable the AEC to conduct referenda safely in times of emergency. The bill also introduces a funding and disclosure scheme to ensure there's transparency and accountability.

No matter what your views are on the Voice, these changes should be a no-brainer. It's about ensuring people who turn up to vote at the referendum can vote in the same way they are used to voting at a federal election, it's about transparency and accountability, it's about bringing our referendum machinery into the 21st century and, importantly, it's about ensuring an efficient and fair vote so that when we head to the ballot box later in the year, we can be confident that this referendum is conducted on a sound and safe foundation. It is important too for Australians to be able to focus on what the referendum is about and the significance of the principle they are being asked to vote for: a voice to the parliament for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Leaders of the Uluru statement understood that it is the Australian people who make decisions about our Constitution. That is why they invited us to all walk with them and support their recognition in the Constitution. For 122 years our Constitution has failed to recognise the First Peoples of this country and their continuous connection to the land for more than 60,000 years. We were deemed by the founding fathers to be a dying race, so Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are conspicuously absent and unrecognised in our founding document. The political power to lord it over us was held by the states. It was not until 1967 that we were finally counted in the census and the Commonwealth was given a clear power in the Constitution to deal with us. While the 1967 referendum was an historic moment of national unity, the work of constitutional recognition is unfinished business.

Fifty years later and more than a century after Federation, there was another constitutional convention at Uluru, this one held by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Uluru convention followed months of consultation and 12 regional dialogues that involved more than 12,000 First Nations people from across the country. It built on work previously done by the constitutional recognition committee. At Uluru, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people spoke up about how they wanted to be recognised in the Constitution. They presented us with a proposal that is elegant in its simplicity and potent in its capacity to achieve practical change for their lives—a constitutionally enshrined voice that can advise the parliament and government so that better policies and laws are made. It's a fact: you get better outcomes when you consult people on the issues that affect their lives. This is what is proposed after almost 250 years.

During the last sittings, I spoke about meetings I held in regional Western Australia during the week of action on the Voice. I spoke about the traditional owners, elders and community leaders from these small and often forgotten communities. They explained why the Voice is important to them. We heard from the Kariyarra elders that the Voice is 'the next step in a long history of advocacy by Aboriginal people of the Pilbara'. We heard from the Yinggarda people and their elders, who said, 'The Voice will empower community voices.' And we heard from staff who worked at local organisations, health services and organisations rehabilitating young people about the differences that the Voice will make to their work.

They need to have a say over the policies and laws that we make in this place that affect their lives, laws that affect their health and ability to get jobs and housing and the wellbeing and education of their children. These are people who have worked hard to improve the living conditions of their communities. They deserve to be heard at the national level, and they will be heard if the referendum is successful. So, when we consider this bill about the mechanical provisions, keep in mind what it is ultimately about.

I want to briefly reflect on our experience of negotiating this bill with some of those opposite. From the start we have extended the hand of bipartisanship on the referendum. The Voice should be above fearmongering and political gains. The government has agreed, in a show of good faith, to reinstate the official pamphlet, yet the support of the opposition is still wavering—or, as I've heard today, they will not be supporting the bill. On this side, we are treating both 'yes' and 'no' campaigns even-handedly—zero public funding for both, because, as I have said, this is the people's referendum; it's for the people to organise their own campaigns and their own funding. Those on the other side believe in the free market. Well, to them I say that both supporters and naysayers are free to fund their own campaigns, within the legal constraints of the bill, of course.

So now is the time for those on the other side to support this bill, whether or not they intend to finally support the Voice, because this bill is about fair, transparent and accountable processes. It is about recognising that it's a modern world, much changed from the time nearly a quarter of a century ago when Australians last voted in a referendum. It's a modern world, and it will be a better world if this legislation is passed, because it will lay the groundwork for a referendum that will create a legacy—if the referendum is supported—that all of us in this chamber can then be proud of.

In closing, let me say something about the AEC. The AEC have been working very closely with the engagement group that the government has set up, and they have been very responsive to many of the group's suggestions and concerns. In parts of our country and some of the jurisdictions, their work has actually increased the voter registration for Indigenous peoples. They have been responsive to the calls about remote polling and the need to stay longer, and they are even considering other matters. They are undertaking work to help Australians attend, be informed about the process and be able to exercise their vote in this very important referendum. This bill is well worth supporting, and I commend it.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate on this important legislation that we have before us, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. I want to state at the outset that I won't be supporting this bill, and I will lay out the reasons why throughout my contribution. I also want to make it very clear to those that might be following this debate here today that this bill is about setting up the mechanism to be able to have a referendum; it's not actually a substantive debate on the referendum itself, and it's certainly not a decision on the final outcome. It will be up to every Australian to decide what their position will be. I'll touch on those two latter points throughout my contribution today, and you will be able to indicate from what I say where I'm at with it, but I just want to really focus on the mechanism bill that is before us and address the concerns that I've got with the bill.

This bill seeks to change the way in which the referendum on an Indigenous voice is carried out. Be in no doubt that the changes made here will impact future referendums, and that's why it's critical that we get this bill right here today. We're debating the way in which Australians can have a say on how our Constitution is changed; it is the most important framework governing this country, so it is absolutely critical that we get it right. As the Institute of Public Affairs said in their submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters:

Constitutional changes represent a fundamental alteration of the institutional and governmental arrangements of the country. The drafters of the Australian Constitution allowed elected politicians to propose constitutional amendments but reserved to the Australian people the right to approve of those proposals, by way of a referendum.

The Opposition have raised three points with the government to address the concerns that we have with the referendum process. The first is to restore the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' case, and I understand there will be an amendment from the government to address that, and that's good; that's welcomed. I look forward to seeing it and understanding exactly how it's going to work. The second one is to establish a 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisation. We understand that that's not what's happening here, so that's a major concern and I'll outline my concerns for that. The third is that those organisations be appropriately funded. These are the three things that the opposition are looking for. As I said, I welcome the government's announcement that they'll restore that pamphlet, and I look forward to seeing that amendment and understanding it better.

Originally, the Prime Minister wanted to conduct this referendum without distributing the views of both cases to the Australian people. It's a real shame. The requirement for a pamphlet was actually introduced in 1912, so it has a very long tradition and it's critical. In fact only three referendums have been held—in 1919, 1926 and 1928—where the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets were not distributed. The AEC gave some evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that a pamphlet to all Australian households will cost approximately $10 million. Further to this, the AEC said that around 40 per cent of Australians rely on receiving a pamphlet provided by the AEC. So, despite what my fellow Western Australian in the other place the member for Perth said in the other place, it's not sufficient for people to receive this information only by TV, email and social media—as if we've moved beyond the need to get this information. I think it's absolutely critical that people are provided with that.

One of the reasons it's critical is that you can't always trust what you read online. If Australians receive something from the very credible source that is the Australian Electoral Commission, it gives them confidence that what they're reading is actually legitimate and that it's not influenced by any particular agenda or any particular actor that might seek to interfere. Having that AEC letterhead or the inscription on the envelope adds particular confidence to the reader—the receiver of that notification—to be able to know that what they're seeing is in fact from an authorised source and can be trusted. The pamphlet and the information contained within it will present both cases in a clear and, hopefully, concise way—they won't be too lengthy. The pamphlet will present the information in a way that people can understand so that they can make a proper and informed choice. It is critical that that information is provided. You can't just rely on TV advertising, you can't just rely on emails being sent out and you can't just rely on social media to be able to deal with it. We all see things that are sent out via social media, and they're not always accurate. Sometimes they've been taken over by others—they call it spoofing—and so, obviously, we want to make sure that that's avoided.

It should be noted that a previous House of Representatives standing committee inquiry into constitutional reform and referendums recommended in December 2021 that the electoral commissioner be allowed to distribute a pamphlet through the mail and using any additional methods that the commissioner considers appropriate. That was recommendation 6. As the IPA correctly noted in its submission:

Abolishing the requirement to publish and distribute a booklet to electors on the spurious grounds cited by the federal government overturns an important and indispensable Australian political tradition, critical to freedom and democracy, which has ensured arguments in respect to both sides of the debate can be heard.

Then, last month, we saw the Prime Minister have his 'Saul on the road to Damascus' moment, where he performed a spectacular backflip—no doubt one of many that we'll see this government do over the next 2½ years that are left of their term. As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out:

It was frankly quite arrogant of the prime minister to believe that he didn't need to provide details to the Australian people.

We welcome the Prime Minister's change of heart and willingness to help inform Australians about what they'll be voting on, but we can't rely on a Labor government to do anything right.

We know that Labor have not had a lot of success when it comes to referendums. Not since 1946 have they held a successful referendum, and it was the only time that they succeeded in changing the Constitution—this was to give the Commonwealth power over a range of social services, such as age pensions, unemployment benefits and the like. This bill, sadly, also does not provide for official 'yes/no' campaign organisations. This bill does not outline any official funding for those campaigns. So far, what we're seeing is that this government's handling of this debate is woeful—it's woeful!

I have had a lot of experience working across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Indigenous affairs across the country; I have worked alongside Indigenous people to help them achieve great outcomes, particularly in the area of employment. I'm very proud of that work, through my partnering with many different people and organisations. It saw tens of thousands of long-term unemployed people—people who Centrelink had classified as having intractable barriers to employment—take up work. They were provided with training to get them into jobs, sustainable jobs, and, importantly, to retain those jobs. So I have great networks across the country in connection with many Indigenous people, and I can tell you that they want real outcomes in their communities. They don't want a talkfest. They don't want people speaking on their behalf. They want to have a very real outcome in their communities.

I will give you a good example of this. Just this week I got on the phone—I haven't had a chance to get up there, mainly because the roads have been blocked and there have been other issues; you don't want to be a tourist, as such—and I spoke to people on the ground in Fitzroy Crossing. Those who followed it would know that there were enormous floods—record level floods—that went through there over January. They wiped out the bridge and wiped out significant infrastructure across that community. I called and asked how things were going; I plan to go up there in April, when I get the first chance to get up there. I spoke to someone on the ground who said, 'Some bureaucrat somewhere, in West Perth or in Canberra, made the decision that we have to put a barge across the river as a temporary measure to deal with the fact that the bridge is washed out.' They said, 'If they just spoke to the local people, they understand that the water levels go up really high when it floods and drops really quickly.' They said that the idea of a barge was never going to work because once the water levels drop, obviously, you can't take the barge across the river, and yet it still might be impassable to trucks. So they spent all this time and all this money building the entrances on both sides of the river to get it right for this barge to go across, and the barge worked for three days. Right now the barge doesn't work; they're going to have to dredge it underneath so that the barge can cross the river, whereas if they'd spent the time—'If they'd listened to us; we know our river, we know our community'—actually understanding that then they would have done the preparatory work on the crossing that's always there. They said that when the water level drops: 'Even if that just meant there were a couple of extra weeks where we had to rely on other sources to get across the river, we'd have a more permanent solution. And once the water level dropped quick enough, we would be in a position to be able to move ahead.' This is just an example of where you have to be listening to the voices of those on the ground, not just some elite, high-level thing,

The hopes of Indigenous people across the country are held high in relation to the outcome of this whole thing, and so it's incredibly important that the government gets it right. It starts with this bill. Sadly, what we're seeing is that they're not getting it right; their handling of this debate is really, really terrible. I don't want to see a situation where we've raised the hopes of people across this country and those hopes being dashed because of the poor handling by this government of this particular debate. What we know is that this government, or Labor, has a poor history when it comes to referendums. As I said, it was the mid-1940s of last century since they last had a successful referendum, and so it's critical that we get it right.

This bill makes no mention of the plan to regulate donations. We've seen that foreign interference can really play an active role in elections. It's important that elections and referendums are held without any taint of interference, because that would completely undermine the whole process and it would be an absolute shame. As we know, even political parties have been targeted, so it would make sense that practical measures to help mitigate the risk are included. Those grounds alone I think are a good reason to have some formal structure around the referendum, with at least nominated official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns.

I have big concerns about this referendum. I have big concerns about the proposal that's been put forward. Nothing so far that the government has put forward have assuaged my concerns. I am a constitutional conservative. If the Constitution's ever changed, it has to be done after very careful consideration. Nothing that the government has said so far and nothing in their handling of it has assuaged my concerns. I think in appropriately setting it up to ensure that there is a proper process, to ensure that there is scrutiny and to ensure that there is integrity around this referendum they should allow the establishment of both a 'yes' and a 'no' organisation—two organisations that are seen by the Australian people as being trusted sources on the situation and the issues that are before us. You don't have to agree with both, of course. You won't. You are going to choose. You are going to pick a side. But it is important that there be those organisations. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't enable the establishment of that and it certainly doesn't allow for the funding of that. I think that's a real shame. It's not going to do anything.

The problem I am seeing in this debate is that it seems that the Labor Party thinks that everyone thinks like them. They are thinking that people will just go along with it on the vibe of what is going on. Sadly, that's not the case. Even the electoral results showed only 30-odd per cent of people actually voted for the Labor Party, so they can't think that everyone thinks like them because only a third of people supported them at the election. So get it right, Labor.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by saying that this country is one of only a few that does not have a treaty with its First Nations people. Instead, we are going down the road in reverse and wanting to put First Nations people into the colonising Constitution that was born in 1901 over the top of the oldest constitution on the planet. I will park that for now.

I wish to speak in general support of the intentions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill. It is providing much-needed updates to how referendums are conducted in this country to keep up with our times. It is also a way to prevent foreign interference with matters in this country, and they are truly ours to resolve.

But I also think that the bill fails to address some key matters, in particular, when it comes to the provision of independent and factual information on the referendum cases and accessibility to voting for those who cannot easily attend a voting booth due to various reasons but also accessibility in regard to cultural and linguistic background. Not everyone is white in this country anymore, right? Last, but not least, it's about accessibility for First Nations people to vote, particularly in the upcoming referendum. Given you wiped out 97 per cent of our people and there's only three per cent left, basically it's up to the majority white people in this country to decide what's best for us. On a First Nations voice to parliament it is absolutely essential that First Nations people are getting as much say as possible, which we know we are not given that it is pretty much a white majority in this country who will decide what is best for us.

The debate around the referendum has already lasted many months and will last many more. We've seen politics playing out strongly in the course of this debate, including the separation in communities, being asked, 'Which camp are you in? Are you in the 'yes' camp or the 'no' camp?' and not even taking into account that we have a progressive 'no' who want a treaty and the end to the war that was declared on First Nations people in this country. 'But we'll park that because that doesn't feel good out there'—the fact that genocide still continues in this country against First Nations children. Let's get back to the warm and fuzzy of a voice.

I appreciate that the government has put forward an amendment to their bill to enable the pamphlets to be produced for the referendum after all. However, we have heard, coming out of this Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on this bill, that people are concerned about politicians developing these materials. Imagine politicians developing these materials—look at this place!—particularly for the upcoming Voice referendum. And we have heard that there should be an independent entity responsible for developing the pamphlets. Who trusts the politicians in this country anyway?

This is why I am moving today an amendment which would put the responsibility for preparing these materials for the Voice referendum in the hands of the Australian Human Rights Commission. The AHRC is very well respected by all and in a good position to ensure the referendum's implications for human rights are fully considered—because you know politicians in this place don't really care about people's human rights, so how can you trust them? The AHRC would be responsible for ensuring that information is clear and factual and accessible to culturally diverse communities and First Nations communities. Imagine that! Understanding what a referendum actually is about is incredibly important, so that people can make an informed decision, which is what politicians don't want the people of this country to do. They don't want you to know the information that makes the decisions in this place. And this bill goes into that.

Accessibility to information but also to the voting process count in any electoral matters, and it is time we ensure that those who cannot easily physically access a voting booth or who live in remote areas can still vote. Beyond what you all think, their votes actually matter, and you need to make it available to these people, instead of the ableism that occurs in this place too often.

This is why I have proposed that mobile-polling-booth periods in remote areas be extended to 19 days, instead of the turning up then leaving after half an hour, when you've had enough of being in that community. I appreciate that, after conversations with the government on this matter, they actually agreed to my amendment, and therefore I won't putting that forward, because they did see the importance of having the polling booths available for people for a lot longer than they normally are.

Whilst this provision will assist First Nations people in remote communities to vote in referendums, there is more that needs to be done to ensure as many First Nations people as possible can vote, particularly in a referendum which decides over us being put in the colonial Constitution—or not. Senator Dodson just stated that the Constitution is the people's document. Well, since 1901, it has been the white people's document, not ours. Now our people are supposedly going to get acknowledged by this document, but once again we don't get a real say and we certainly don't get any real power.

Something that would make a real difference for the First Nations vote is allowing provisional voting and enrolment on the day, which is why I will move amendments to extend this today. If this government is going to claim that this referendum supports self-determination of First Nations people, then it needs to be doing everything it can to ensure that as many blackfellas as possible vote. We might only be three per cent of the population due to the genocidal acts of previous governments that wiped out 97 per cent of my people. We don't get a say. It's up to everyone else. Where's the self-determination in that?

The government has expressed reservations about allowing provisional voting, even though we have heard of the benefits of it in the inquiry process from the Australian Electoral Commission themselves. I quote the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Rogers, who said:

I would really like to see it for the referendum—

referring to enrolment on the day.

I think it's important. … I know that may not necessarily make it into legislation, but … We think it is a failsafe mechanism … I guarantee that when we get close to the event it will become significant … I think it will be a problem if we don't have it.

So, when First Nations leaders, which you love referring to all the time, and now the Electoral Commissioner himself are going for the inclusion of provisional voting, what will it say if the government does not support this provision? How much faith does this give us that the government listens to advice such as that provided by the proposed First Nations Voice to Parliament?

We know it's a tokenistic gesture from the Labor government. It's the black cladding that you need. But you won't even listen to the advice about ensuring that blackfellas actually get a say in matters that affect them. You're showing your colours now. You talk about voter fraud despite there being no evidence that this actually occurs. That's what you came back with during the negotiations: you're worried about voter fraud if our people get to enrol and vote on the day. Do you know what that is? It's racist. With the AEC dismissing concerns around this, fears of voter fraud are simply racist rhetoric that conservatives have used to suppress First Nations people. Provisional votes still require some form of ID, whether that be a Medicare card or a Centrelink card, and can involve an elder attending the booth to help verify people in the community. It's alright for your Labor elections—you'll allow all that to happen—but, when it comes to this business, you're not doing the same thing. It is not hard to do, and it would be a shame to see this government reject the advice from First Nations people and the Australian Electoral Commission on this measure that would significantly increase the First Nations vote. You would think that, in good faith, you would just do it, but you're going to make it hard for blackfellas to vote. Well, wave the flag.

Article 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

I know you don't care about the UNDRIP. We know that Australia is only a signatory to it and it's just a token gesture, saying: 'Oh, we're signatory to the UNDRIP, but we really don't care about it and we're really not going to make it part of the law in this country. It makes us feel good that it's just over there somewhere.' This right and the right to citizenship are undermined if First Nations people are not able to exercise their right to vote, especially on a matter which foremost concerns us as a people.

Today I'm also proposing telephone voting provisions similar to those that we were using during COVID to be made permanent so that people in remote areas, in residential care, in hospitals—not just blackfellas but everybody—or in places affected by emergencies, which we know this country is full of, can vote through a secure telephone line. This would also apply to those overseas who have no access to a postal vote or an overseas polling place and would allow homeless people to vote. I mean, you're not looking after them fellas in the first place; at least let 'em vote! Or is it that you're scared they might vote you out when they get the right? All of these matters are incredibly important to ensuring that people—in particular, First Nations people and those from diverse backgrounds—can engage with and access the next referendum; in fact, any referendum.

You talk about the people, you talk about the Voice—you talk, talk, talk. There's no action. Don't talk self-determination when self-determination means that the government control what we decide. It doesn't make sense, and you're in breach of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And this country is still guilty of genocide, with 22,000 Aboriginal children in out-of-home care today. So give us the right to participate in the democracy you are so precious about. Allow those who aren't as able as all of you are to pick up the phone to vote and to enrol on the day and vote. Allow the people to determine their own destiny, instead of bullying your way through and shutting voices down. I ask you all to consider this properly and I would ask you all to think seriously about supporting my amendments to this bill.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. The first point I wish to make is that it is extraordinarily hard to change the Australian Constitution. The Australian Constitution is the founding document of our parliamentary democracy, the founding document of our nation. It does represent what we aspire to be, and the drafters of our Constitution made it particularly difficult to change it. They set a very high bar and they did so for a very good reason. You do not want, particularly in a federation, where you have the coming together of states to form a nation, to have a founding document, a constitutional arrangement, that is very easy to change. To do so would, of course, invite chaos, where state and federal governments were never clear as to their responsibilities and roles in the nation and where they would find it extraordinarily difficult to navigate a change in environment in that way.

Mr Deputy President, if you look back on the history of Australian referendums, you'll see that only eight of 44 have been successful. That's a well-known statistic. Three of the eight that succeeded were held together, so actually there have been only six occasions when people have agreed with the proposals in front of them. So the Australian people, throughout our history, have shown a reluctance to change our foundational document. Referendums need to be very necessary and very well understood and discussed prior to being presented to the Australian people.

I look back now, with the benefit of hindsight, the benefit of history, at the proposals that the Australian people rejected and I think that in the vast majority of cases the Australian people got it right. A raft of early referendums were put up, perhaps unsurprisingly, by the federal parliament to extend and expand its powers after a number of initial High Court judgements that, quite rightly at the time, saw state government as having a very significant role in certain areas of public policy. It probably was, in fact, quite the reverse of the situation today and the situation over the last 50 years.

In those first 20 or 30 years of democracy, where the referendum proposals were about expanding the powers of this place, you had the outlying states actually supporting them. The vast majority of referendum proposals in the 1901-to-1930 period were actually supported by states like my home state of WA, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland because at that time they had a very unique dynamic in that they were much smaller, much less economically developed and much more reliant on assistance from a small and albeit less powerful Commonwealth government.

So when presented with the opportunity to expand the powers of the Commonwealth government to perhaps gain a bit more support those smaller states actually voted yes, but the referendums failed because of the requirement that it be a majority of people in a majority of states. That was a very important check that the drafters of our Constitution put in place. As I said, in hindsight I suspect that every single one of those proposals would now be opposed by the voters in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland—and I won't comment on Tasmania. I suspect they'd all vote against them, and quite rightly so. They were probably overreach at that time.

So we see regular referendum failures throughout our history. I want to highlight another one that failed. Again, if we look at it today I think we'd say: 'Goodness gracious. Was it ever even proposed to give this place, the Commonwealth parliament, the power to basically nationalise monopolies, to nationalise corporations or people in positions of significant commercial power within our nation?' Again, that was soundly defeated in a referendum where there were no 'yes' or 'no' cases presented, which had become the norm even at that point in our political democracy.

So you can see that the Australian people have over the course of our constitutional history been very reluctant to change our foundation document, and that is why it is so important—even more important I would argue in this day and age than in previous referenda—in an age of disinformation, in an age of misinformation and in an age where the sources of information available to people are both legion and in many case highly dubious, that we actually look at machinery bills, such as this one, and make sure they are crafted to achieve the outcome, which is giving the Voice to the Australian people's decision-making. That's why we in the coalition have raised a number of points—the need to restore the 'yes' and 'no' cases which were eliminated in the first draft of this bill, the importance of establishing those official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations that have become a part of our usual expectation of referendums proceeding, and appropriately funding the official organisations.

Once again we don't have to look back that far in history to see that the Labor Party has a very poor track record in these machinery provision bills. We only have to go back to 2013 to see the Labor Party then putting up a referendum on the recognition of local government. I point out that that had failed twice before, and so the Australian people had had their say on that proposal in the course of relatively recent political history. I believe—and this is just going from memory—it was in 1977 and 1988. That matter had been put before the Australian people at least two times before and the Australian people had quite resoundingly said that that was not something that they supported. There was a very particular set of circumstances around that bill. It was done as part of a deal to form government by the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, with Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott. In order to form a minority government with Labor, part of their demands was that a referendum on local government proceed. But the handling of that referendum was, to put it in its kindest light, highly dubious. Rather than equally funding a 'yes' and 'no' case, as had become the norm, the decision was taken to hand the 'yes' case $10 million and the 'no' case $500,000. I will say those numbers again, because it is an important fact to remember that, at the last referendum the Labor Party in government put forward, they were willing to fund the 'yes' case $10 million and the 'no' case $500,000.

This was done on the spurious basis that only a couple of members of parliament had voted against the bill. It was completely lacking any justification. The fact that only two members of parliament voted against the machinery provisions bill did not reflect their view on the final referendum outcome in any way, shape or form, just as the vote on this bill does not represent a view on a referendum outcome in any way, shape or form. Yet, at that time, Labor was willing to use the very paper-thin justification of the fact that there were only two votes against the referendum mechanism legislation to put in place unbalanced funding to the tune of $10 million for the 'yes' case and $500,000 for the 'no' case.

As it turned out, that referendum didn't go ahead, and the politics of that were very strange as well. Obviously, Prime Minister Gillard lost out to Prime Minister Rudd, and the election date changed by a week, slightly suspiciously, which meant the referendum was knocked off the agenda. I would be willing to put 10 quid on the fact that it was knocked off the agenda because they knew that referendum was going to go down and go down resoundingly. Regardless of how many people in this place voted against the referendum machinery bill, from working in politics at that time and talking very closely with large numbers of people, I know that, in my home state of Western Australia, even those inside local government at that time were extremely opposed to that referendum being successfully carried. So I suspect that, in the knowledge that that referendum was not only going to go down but was going to go down resoundingly and at a time of a federal election where the Labor Party had acted so inappropriately in funding the 'yes' case to the tune of $10 million and the 'no' case to the tune of $500,000, the election date just happened to be moved forward by a week so the referendum wouldn't go ahead.

So Labor, sadly, has form. This is an area where you cannot afford to be political. As I said earlier, there have been 44 referendums in Australia's history; eight passed. This is an area where you cannot allow politics to enter the fray. It can be a discussion—people can have legitimately different perspectives. But, when you start politicising those things, when you start treating different sides of an argument in different ways, when you start ruling out or ruling in the traditional way that we have approached these—an Australian commitment to fairness, a fair go—that is something that we on this side take very seriously indeed. Yes, the Labor government has acted on the 'yes' and 'no' case. I haven't yet looked at the amendment myself, but I certainly will do so. But it needs to go beyond that. The coalition and Senator Hume made the coalition's position very clear—that it needs to go beyond that. Labor needs to be committed to a referendum arrangement and structure that is fair, open, transparent; that deals properly with donation regimes and foreign interference; and that provides a plan for how the scrutiny of the referendum will be conducted.

So I say to those opposite and I say to all Australians: this is extremely important. It is hard to change our foundational document, and it should be hard to change our foundational document. It is a matter about which all Australians deserve the utmost chance to hear arguments for and against, to hear the case for and against. Without that, I think we leave ourselves in a very difficult and dangerous position as a democracy.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, although I will be moving a number of amendments to try to improve it. When it comes to setting up the conditions for a referendum, we've heard arguments that tradition is important, and I agree. There is much to be said for looking to the past and seeing how things were done and how that served us. But that should not stop us from ensuring that we are learning from the past and that we are putting into place things to deal with the challenges that we know we are facing when it comes to referendums and elections: the changing landscape when it comes to social media; the expectations of Australians when it comes to truth in political advertising; political donation reform; and advances in technology to allow those things to be dealt with by the government.

While I'm hopeful that these amendments will receive support, I'm realistic that they're unlikely to get enough support to get over the line in the face of opposition by the major parties. This is really disappointing, to be frank. We hear a lot about transparency, and yet when Australians are clearly saying: 'We want more real-time political donation reporting. We want truth in political advertising. We want to be able to trust ads and things online when it comes to elections,' we don't hear much from the major parties. They point to reviews, when we actually have an opportunity now, with this referendum, to put some of those in place.

This referendum will be a defining moment in our history. As a younger Australian, I see it as an incredible opportunity to begin to right 100-plus years of wrongs—of not listening and of not consulting—and, for the first time as a nation, to say that we acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and that we believe they should, and will, have a voice on issues that affect them. That's what this referendum is about. The details of how that happens and what that looks like is up to politicians. It's up to elected representatives, as it should be, to vote on the model, and then, you'd hope, to improve it over time. That's what we're here to do. This is not a set-and-forget thing. This should be a matter of principle at the referendum and then a live, ongoing debate about what the best way is for First Nations people, Australia's First Peoples, to have a voice on issues that affect them.

To save the Senate time when it comes to committee of the whole, I'm going to run through my amendments here. The first one is about real-time donation disclosures. I know that a number of crossbenchers have raised this. It's something that has often been raised with us, and we'll be circulating amendments, if that hasn't been done already. I believe it's so important, from a transparency perspective, that when we go to the polls to vote on this potential change to our Constitution that we know who has funded the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. Clearly, we need that level of transparency for federal elections, and I'm very hopeful that the government will move on that before the next election. But the referendum is an opportunity for this. Frankly, it's laughable that six months plus after an election we see who funded it. It isn't good enough anymore, and it's very easy to fix with the technology we have now. We could have close to real-time disclosures. I'm suggesting 14 days for these disclosures to be made public: seven days to submit a donation disclosure declaration and seven days to for it then to be made public. This technology is clearly available, so this is about political will by the government.

The next amendment is to do with exclusion zones. Referendums, like elections, can be very emotive. We've seen that play out even amongst politicians in this place and the other place. A number of jurisdictions do have exclusion zones which exclude certain activities around polling stations, like handing out how-to-vote cards and other behaviour designed to influence others. This amendment proposes setting up a similar zone nationally for the referendum. I believe it's an opportunity to ensure that polling stations are a safe space where people can go and cast their votes on this very important issue. It avoids the potential for some of the awful scenes that we saw on television over the weekend.

The next amendment is fact-checking of the pamphlet. Whilst I don't necessarily agree that in 2023 we should be mailing a pamphlet to every household, the government has decided that that's something it wants to do. At the very least, it should be fact-checked. We've heard a lot about truth in political advertising. Senator Brockman talked about us living in the age of disinformation and misinformation, and I believe this amendment begins to address some of that. We've seen political parties engage in misinformation and smear campaigns over a number of elections. The member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, has been pushing for much broader truth-in-political-advertising reform, which I fully support and which, certainly, from what I've been hearing from people in the ACT, the majority of people support. It makes a lot of sense. Again, we need political leadership and will from the government on this. Whilst there is the broader agenda, we have the opportunity to ensure that, at the very least, the pamphlet goes out with the contents of that pamphlet grounded in fact. It doesn't seem to be a big ask to me.

It's a pamphlet written by parliamentarians and I understand that it can have up to 2,000 words from each side of the debate. This has been raised with me by a lot of concerned people, including by people on the referendum working group, saying that if we're going to have a pamphlet then let's ensure that it's factual. That's because we saw some pretty average things going out in the names of various political parties and activist groups in the federal election. We in this place, the parliament of Australia, need to set the standard. If we're going to send something out, it should be factual. Australians should be able to believe what they see coming from our parliament. As it stands, that potentially won't be the case. The 'yes' and 'no' sides can write what they want and mail it out to every Australian household. I don't see how that's good enough. We talk about wanting to raise the standard of debate here and wanting to restore some trust in politics and politicians. Here's an opportunity—with the referendum. So I implore the government to consider this amendment. It is common sense. It is sensible. It is simply about ensuring that whatever goes out on that pamphlet is grounded in fact and people can have confidence in that.

The last amendment will be to add social media to the advertising blackout period. Again, things are changing. I don't see why we should say there's a blackout period for TV and print media and not include social media. We know that a huge amount of political advertising happens around elections, and I think that will certainly be the case with the referendum in 2023. I ask the government to consider this small update, which, again, is possible. Social media companies have pretty stringent rules when it comes to political advertising. The argument that it's too hard simply doesn't work in this case, because there are ways that they can ensure that all political ads are pulled a few days before the referendum.

Those are the amendments, which, again, will set up this referendum for what is a defining moment in our history. I would urge parliamentarians to stop playing cheap politics with this. This has the potential to change our nation for the better and allow us to begin to deal with the problems. In my short time here, we have debated for hours about wanting the federal government to step in and intervene in Alice Springs. What's happening there is an absolute tragedy, but we know that these things do not happen overnight. This has built up over a long time. If Australia's First Peoples had a way to have a voice to parliament, that would, in my mind, better equip this parliament to consult and then to make laws in a way that is more reflective of what Australians want and what Australians want Australia to become. This is a huge opportunity.

I really implore people in this place to embrace this. It's something that I think is on all of us. The way that we talk about it, the way that we set this up and, leading into the vote, the level of debate—those are choices that we will make, and we will be held accountable for our actions after that.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's good to see Senator Farrell here as well, this week; it's good to see Senator Farrell back. It's always a pleasure to follow Senator Pocock, and I'll first acknowledge the heartfelt nature of his comments. He brings to this debate, and to all the discussions in this place, a heartfelt conviction: he's to do what's best for this country. I acknowledge that, Senator Pocock.

Queensland has voted yes in 21 referenda out of the 44 referenda, and, as far as I can work out from my research, there has not been a single referendum passed in Australia without Queensland's support. So Queensland is a key state in terms of all referenda that are considered in this country, including the forthcoming referendum. I think that context is very important to note. Australia has a history in referenda where, on many occasions, the most populous states have approved a referendum, so the majority of citizens in those states—namely, Victoria and New Wales—have voted in favour of a referendum, but less populous states have voted against the referendum. That should be recognised and noted by all senators engaging in this debate.

There are really three issues which the opposition has raised in relation to the referendum machinery, and, at the outset, I compliment the government for at least addressing the first one, and that is the need for a pamphlet to be disseminated to all Australian voters in relation to the referendum and for that pamphlet to have a 'yes' case and a 'no' case. I do take on board Senator Pocock's observation as to whether or not a pamphlet is required in this day and age, but the AEC, in the evidence it gave to the committee, noted that a lot of people do rely upon that sort of information coming from the AEC, so I think there is benefit in terms of having that pamphlet with the 'yes' and 'no' cases.

One other collateral point I want to speak to which Senator Pocock raised in that context was this issue of fact-checking. As a matter of principle, one could say: 'Well, what's the concern about fact-checking?' The issue is: when does a fact become a matter of opinion? Certainly, a majority of ex High Court judges have written opinion pieces in relation to the impact of the proposed wording on the Constitution and might consider that the risks are low, in relation to courts deciding matters flowing from that wording to the constitutional amendment; it could well be that a majority of ex High Court justices have that opinion. But there are also High Court justices—in particular, Ian Callinan from my home state of Queensland—who have a different point of view and believe there are risks associated with the introduction of those words. Now, should it be within the province of a so-called fact-checker to make a determination on the basis of whether or not those risks are live risks, or should it be for the Australian voters to make their own decision based on the credibility of people putting the differing arguments and deciding for themselves? That is my concern with respect to so-called fact-checking—that issues which are really matters of opinion and subjectivity fall within the province of so-called fact-checkers and that people are given just one predetermined view with respect to matters in which there are legitimate views on both sides of an argument. That is my fundamental concern as to the concept of fact-checking and how fact-checking can morph into opinion-vetting and go beyond the remit of just checking facts. That is a real concern that I have with respect to the notion of fact-checking. Let people check their own facts. Let people assess the credibility of those who are putting forward arguments. Let people access information in the marketplace of ideas and come to their own view. I think that's an important point to note.

Moving on from the issue of the pamphlet to the issue of formal campaigns, my second point is this. I think there is great merit in terms of the establishment of formal campaigns—a formal campaign for and a formal campaign against. In the context of so-called fact checking and the credibility of arguments which are put forward and the basis for those arguments, having formal campaigns will actually provide a credible source to which people can go to obtain reasoned arguments, whether in favour or against any particular policy. So I think there's great merit in having formal campaigns recognised.

Senator Pocock has spoken about finance, donations, in relation to this referendum campaign. Having formal campaigns established also assists in ensuring accountability with respect to the reporting of donations and getting across the maze of our electoral laws with respect to the reporting of donations. That is the second limb of why it's important to have formal campaigns recognised. The first is so that people have a credible source to which they can go to get the information they're searching for to answer their questions when they're determining how they're going to cast their vote in the referendum. The second is that it also provides for accountability with respect to the deployment of donations and to ensure that our Australian electoral laws are complied with.

The third point I want to make is with respect to funding. Bear in mind that we're considering and debating a piece of legislation that deals with referendum machinery. It isn't just a question, from my perspective, with respect to the forthcoming Voice referendum. It's a question as to what principles should apply when the Australian people are considering change to their Constitution. As a first principle, I think disseminating to every Australian elector a pamphlet which has a 'no' and a 'yes' case is an important part of the process. Formal 'yes' campaigns and 'no' campaigns, providing for accountability, credibility and responsibility—I think that's an important limb. But the third one is equality of funding. In this respect, again, as a general principle there should be a minimum amount of equal funding provided to the 'yes' case and the 'no' case—a minimum level of funding to ensure that the arguments for and against have the ability to cut through to the Australian people and the Australian people know where they can get the information which they're seeking in order to make their decision with respect to the Voice referendum or any other referendum.

I want to go back in time—and Senator Farrell may remember this. I'm not going that far back in time; I'm sure there are many things Senator Farrell would remember, but we're not going too far back. I do want to go back to the proposed referendum on the recognition of local government. Senator Farrell, do you go back that far?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was rhetorical. I'm sure he does remember. In that referendum the choice was made by the then Labor government that they should allocate $10.5 million to the question of whether or not local government should be formally recognised in our Constitution, but $10 million was to be given to the Australian Local Government Association for the 'yes' case and $500,000 was to be given for the 'no' case. This allocation of funding was apparently based on the percentage of members of parliament who supported the change. I don't want to go back in history and analyse the reasons for that, but the basic proposition that you would give $10 million—20 times as much to one case over the other case—did not go down well with the Australian people. In fact, it actually hardened the opposition to the referendum. It was a strategic blunder by the then Labor government, and it didn't end well in terms of the prosecution of that case. So I think there is a lesson. We should learn from history. This is an example which suggests that we should look at providing equal funding to both a 'yes' case and a 'no' case—a minimal level of funding to ensure that the arguments can be ventilated in an appropriate way with the Australian people. If other people want to provide additional funding—absolutely. That's their right. We live in a democracy. There is no issue at all. But there should be at least a minimal level of equal funding for both a 'yes' case and a 'no' case, notwithstanding what the question is. Whatever the question is, whether it's the Voice or anything else, there should be that minimum, equal level of funding.

The last comment I want to make in relation to this matter is the way in which the debate is conducted, and I have spoken in this place before and called out what I consider to be egregious personal attacks which have been made on various members of this place who have stood up and given their perspective, their view, with respect to this question. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that, when senators—members of the lower house, members of the Australian community—get up and give a good-faith, bona fide position on this referendum, they are personally attacked, their motives are impugned and they are subjected to personal slurs. That is unacceptable. I say—and I remind myself; we should all reflect on ourselves—to those who engage in conduct at that level, who use that overblown language, personal slurs and rhetoric, whether you're 'yes' or 'no', all you will do is empower the opponents of whatever position you hold, whichever side of the debate you are on, because Australians typically, certainly in my home state of Queensland, do not approve of that sort of personal politicking. They really don't.

I think all of us in this place should lead by example in terms of the conduct of this debate and call out those who overstep the mark. I understand it's a passionate debate, and you've got to give some licence in that regard. But the line has been crossed on a number of occasions in the course of the last 12 months in ways which I consider to be indefensible. Certainly, I believe that those who have overstepped the mark have in fact undermined their own credibility, when they actually raise legitimate arguments for the consideration of Australians in the context of this debate. With those comments, I support the position of the coalition in relation to this bill.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

enator COX () (): I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill is an enabling piece of legislation that will pave the way for our first referendum in nearly 25 years. For many, this will be the first referendum that they have ever voted in. Putting aside the topic of the referendum for just one moment, this in itself is an incredible opportunity. It's an opportunity for a new generation of people to participate in shaping our Constitution, ensuring that our Constitution is updated and ensuring that those updates are voted on and fundamentally enshrined as part of our democracy here in this country. At its core, that is what this bill is actually about. It's about ensuring people can participate in shaping a fundamental document for this country and about the way that we can conduct referendums in the future. That is, importantly, what this bill represents.

Regardless of your position on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice or on constitutional recognition, giving the people of this country the chance to have their say on the matter is about supporting a healthy democracy. Your personal opinion doesn't mean that the people of this country should not get to have their say, and I urge members of this place to reflect on this as they vote on this bill.

Now, this isn't the first time we've attempted something like this. Many of you may remember that we had a failed attempt made under former prime minister John Howard in 1999, when the proposed change was to mention First Nations people in the preamble to the Constitution. This was a proposal that involved no consultation with the Australian public or with First Nations people. But this time it is different, and this calls for a voice to parliament and, indeed, the other two elements of the Uluru Statement of the Heart, which are truth and treaty. These arose from many forums, after much robust discussion. Most importantly, this came from First Nations people. The constitutional reform process is now entirely appropriate, as opposed to the reform that was proposed in 1999. This referendum isn't about what form of recognition that Australian people want to give to First Nations people, but whether they will accept the form of recognition that is being sought by First Nations people.

I want to echo the comments made by my colleague Senator Waters about the great importance of this referendum but also the importance of actually getting this process right, to ensure that as many people as possible can vote in this referendum, especially First Nations people. The Greens have several amendments before you around this matter, particularly on provisional voting and voting in prisons. At its core, the Voice actually allows First Nations people to have a say on matters that affect them. Yet, many First Nations people will not have a chance to have their voice actually heard during this referendum process, particularly if the amendments before you don't get up. The government has a very important role to play in making sure that this in fact is not the case.

There is a long history in this country of First Nations people not being able to vote, and I take this chance to remind you that First Nations people were only granted the right to vote in 1962. Historically, we've not been allowed to vote at all. There are other obstacles that stand in the way of First Nations people voting, such as the location of polling stations and the requirements of enrolment that many in this country still cannot meet. The Australian Electoral Commission has estimated that there are 87,000 First Nations people who are eligible to vote but are in fact not enrolled. There needs to be a grassroots community movement to get as many people on the electoral roll as possible, which is led by elders and community leaders.

It is completely understandable why many First Nations people don't want to vote, and we need to meet them right where they're at, have a yarn with them and help them get what they actually need in order to enrol to vote. There are also many who wish to enrol but simply cannot meet the requirements. So this is not about stacking the vote, as we have heard today, in particular from the government; this is about ensuring that people exercise their right to vote. Voting is a right. It's not a privilege. And it is the job of this government to make sure that voting is as easy as possible for everyone, regardless of where they are across this vast country. They may be in prison, in hospital, in a remote community or even abroad, but they should have that opportunity and that right.

There has been $52.6 million allocated to the Australian Electoral Commission, the National Indigenous Australians Agency and the Attorney-General's Department to prepare for this referendum. This must include efforts that absolutely get the 87,000 First Nations people on the electoral roll and able to have access to provisional voting, voting in prisons, mobile voting booths and communications in language that ensure that people understand in their own language what they are in fact voting for. This includes independent and fact-checked pamphlets, but it's also vitally important that the information in any pamphlets is carefully considered and also crosschecked.

For this to work, we need as many people to participate as possible. We know that provisional voting is possible, and the wonderful crew at GetUp have done some incredible work on provisional voting, particularly in the most recent Northern Territory election. We must allow people to enrol to vote and to cast their vote on the day. This is key in ensuring that as many people as possible get the opportunity to have their say. There is no evidence—absolutely no evidence—that provisional voting is a risk for voter fraud. Indeed, provisional voting is supported by key stakeholders—which you heard earlier—and by the Australian Electoral Commission in particular.

Thirty-two per cent of people in prison are First Nations people. Many of these people will not have the opportunity to vote. First Nations people are not just overrepresented in our prisons; they are also disproportionately impacted by our criminal justice system and receive harsher penalties. The harsher penalties often impact on their eligibility to vote and their eligibility to have access to identification. This is all part of the continual colonial oppression that First Nations people still experience to this day. I can't overstate how important this is: these amendments would ensure that everyone, but especially First Nations people, can vote in this referendum.

We have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure that this referendum is in fact successful. This bill is just the start. The Greens are supporting this bill, but, as Senator Waters already said, we are seeking to improve it. We need to get First Nations people on the electoral roll, communicate information in language, ensure voting is accessible in remote communities and make provisions for people to enrol and cast their vote on the actual day of the referendum. I am absolutely disappointed. It is shameful that the government will not be supporting our amendments. These amendments would ensure many people, especially First Nations people, can actually vote in this referendum.

This is about access and equity. This referendum is to establish a voice to parliament. The Voice is supposed to represent First Nations people, and the government is actively opposing measures that will enable greater First Nations participation? Shame! If there is any genuine and meaningful action towards self-determination that is in fact informed and framed by our human rights, this work has to be in the present. In fact, it has to be right here and now, in this place. The government must ensure these reasonable amendments are supported to ensure the success of the Voice to Parliament.

I have said this before and I will say it again: this should be a unifying moment in this country, a turning point for us. We need this because, for the last 230 years, First Nations people have not had a voice or, if they have had a voice, they haven't had it listened to. We have been subjected to countless government policies, some of them well meaning and most of them absolutely devastating to our people. So this referendum is just the start of what could be a decade of change for First Nations people, which is why it's absolutely vital that we take the time in this place to get this process right. So I am asking all of you to take this into consideration when you think about voting for this bill.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't seek to repeat all the various matters that have been discussed this morning about the lack of success of referenda in Australia over the past 120 years. These changes that have been proposed are modernisation changes, largely, many of which were canvassed in a significant report conducted in the last parliament by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.

This bill which we are looking at today, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill, seeks to modernise voting and counting, authorisations and financial disclosures for referendum entities and also to deal with foreign donations. The coalition have flagged that there are additional changes that we are seeking. I want to put on the record my thanks to Senator Hume for the work she has done in working with the government to secure the 'yes and no' booklet, which I believe will be an improvement to the bill as originally introduced. There are some additional changes that have been sought in relation to the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and the designation of those and there has been the proposal of administrative funding for those campaigns, if they are to be designated.

These are laudable objectives to try to ensure that we have a clean referendum, because, in the age of misinformation and disinformation, we don't want to see the referendum tainted in any way by outside actors, given the deteriorating environment in which we live. The idea of having 'yes' and 'no' cases is not a new one. There were committees that were drawn upon for the republic referendum in '99, so it's not a new idea. It may be a complicated idea, though, and we need to look very closely at how that would work, given there are a multitude of voices in this space. There are already multiple 'no' campaigns, and there are different views on the 'yes' side as well. So it is important to give careful consideration as to how that would work, given there are strong views amongst both camps already at this very early stage. I think the question of administrative funding is a clearer concept, if you can deal with the difficulty of designating a committee or designating a particular campaign or group of campaigners. I would say this is an issue where there is an enormous amount of misinformation and it may be very difficult to bring all the different views on just one side together, but I believe it is worthy of consideration.

I want to talk about the issue here of the Voice. It is a referendum, like the other 44 that have occurred in the past, but it is a referendum which must be above politics, because it is not about a routine or day-to-day political issue; it is about trying to overturn and reverse 120 years of paternalism, which has been a disaster for Indigenous people in the main. When you stand back and look at Australia, you can say we have been a successful country. But we have not been a good country for Indigenous people in the main, and we spend a lot of time in this chamber and the other place discussing the various discrepancies on an almost weekly basis, as we should. So to achieve success at this referendum—and I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister's leadership in putting this on the agenda—requires a process which everyone can get behind in their own way, recognising that for different communities and different Australians there are different ways they will respond to the messages in this campaign. As we saw with same-sex marriage in 2017, there will be a desire and there will be a need for targeted messaging to motivate people to vote yes, perhaps, but also to vote no, if that is the will of the campaigner.

To date I must say it is regrettable that there has not been more effort put into setting up structures inside this parliament to enable a bipartisan position or tripartisan position in relation to these matters. In terms of the wording that is proposed for the document itself, we read in the papers today that the government wants to introduce a Constitution alteration bill in these sittings. That is their prerogative. But the fact that that has not been the product of a parliamentary committee I think is hugely regrettable, because once the government introduces a bill into this parliament then that is by definition the government's policy, and there have been multiple attempts by members of this and the other chamber to offer to work with the government and the community on looking at the wording that is going to be put to the Australian people. I recognise the minister is proposing that there be a routine committee, I assume a select committee or through the legal and cons committee of the Senate, to look at the wording. But as I said, that will be reviewing the government's policy. It would've been far better if the parliament could have looked at the various models for constitutional alteration before a bill was introduced into the parliament.

I make these statements because we are addressing a bill which is to do with the ongoing machinery arrangements of referenda, but it is very hard to separate the fact that this particular bill is being introduced and debated as a precursor to the Voice referendum. Even in glancing at the House committee recommendations from 2021, that link is made.

If you want this particular referendum to be successful as I do then a lot more effort needs to go into building up a broader base of support for the change. I know that many people here and many people around Australia will also vote 'no', and that is a reasonable position. It doesn't mean that you are a racist. It doesn't mean that you are anything. We want to see a debate where the facts are known, there can be civility and the vote will be known to all Australians with a degree of integrity. My sense of what Senator Hume is trying to pursue here is just that: that the changes that are to be made to the referendum machinery act are changes which ensure that Australians have confidence that the referendum to be conducted later this year on the Voice has been conducted with integrity and appropriate governance and oversight. We want to think very carefully about the changes we make here, particularly if we are to be empowering ministers to make judgements about these matters. There are very different views about these issues in the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, and I think we ought to consider that.

I want to place again on record my acknowledgement of the work that's been done by the government here in acknowledging a slew of changes which have been needed to the machinery act but also of the suggestions that Senator Hume has made, part of which have been adopted by the government.

In closing, I want to reiterate for the record my expectation that, whether people are 'yes' voters or 'no' voters, they will engage in this debate with respect and civility. If this is a 'yes' vote, I personally believe that, if the wording in the Constitution is right, it will be a very significant step forward; but, if it is a 'no' vote, which I think would be a disaster for race relations in this country, we will need to live together and we will need to find a way to move ahead. I think anything we can do to maximise opportunities for us to get to a 'yes' vote with a bipartisan accommodation should be urgently addressed by the government in the coming weeks and months.

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The referendum working group is still working at the detail as we are being asked to pass this legislation, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. Flip-flopping, backflipping, chopping and changing, and making it up as we go along are the staples of the lead-up to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament by this government. We've seen changes to the wording, suggesting the Voice might also speak to national cabinet and then that maybe it would not, muddling about it making representation to the executive and parliament. One week we were told the Voice was about closing the gap, the next that it was about reconciliation—but wait. It's also about giving Indigenous people a say in the laws—or is it now 'matters'—that affect them and it's about international reputation. It is all a little confusing, really.

Regardless of whether you made up your mind long ago or are still waiting for the detail, one thing that should be a given is that the information related to the question is accurate and presents both sides for consideration. The bill makes fundamental changes to how referenda are conducted in Australia that go beyond what has been done in the past. Australians have proven time and time again that they don't take changing the Constitution lightly, and so we should all be cautious every single time, regardless of the question. Australians think deeply and carefully about changes to the Constitution and should expect that their only consideration and concern should be how they vote, not the process that has enabled the vote. Of the 44 referenda that have been put to the people on the Australian Constitution, only eight have succeeded.

This referendum should be no different from any other in form. There is no genuine, reasonable reason for it to be different or out of step with every other referendum. That is why I won't vote for the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill in its current form.

In an age of disinformation, the Australian public, no matter where they live or how they access information, must have access to and know that there is credible and evidence based information that they can rely on. That will assist a strong, informed referendum process that has integrity, transparency and accountability. Three things need to happen for us to support the bill: the pamphlet that outlines both the 'yes' and 'no' cases needs to be restored, official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations need to be established, and those official organisations need to be appropriately funded.

This bill removes the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases for changing the Constitution. This action sets a dangerous precedent. The requirement for a pamphlet was implemented in 1912. This is the first time there has been no pamphlet provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup. In 1967 and 1977 only 'yes' pamphlets were provided to the electorate. There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet—in 1919 when there was insufficient time to produce it, in 1926 when there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument and in 1928 when there was overwhelming agreement between parties and governments.

In the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters the electoral commissioner said that a significant education effort would be important to ensuring that individuals and entities involved in referendum campaigns are aware of their disclosure obligations. The act prescribes that each argument in the official pamphlet can be up to 2,000 words in length, and there's a time line to ensure it arrives in a timely manner. How could anyone, understanding the diversity of Australians, think that there was something wrong with that? We welcome the government's announcement to restore the pamphlet, but we'll reserve our position until a final amendment is presented. It's the detail that's needed.

The bill does not outline any official funding of these campaigns. We can't support a bill that doesn't have a plan on how to properly regulate donations and foreign interference and doesn't provide a plan for how scrutiny of the referendum will be conducted. Surely it's reasonable to look at simple, practical steps that put structure around this process and help our regulators and our agencies manage the referendum. Changing the rules to meet the fast-tracking of an election promise creates risk, some of which could be resolved by the establishment of appropriately and equally funded official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations.

We welcome the engagement from the government on this bill, but until we have our concerns addressed we must and will oppose this bill. In the general community I still hear people say that they don't even know what the Voice is. There is little confusion about the concept of constitutional recognition, but the concept of the Voice remains insufficiently explained. It is simply not people's priority and not front of mind for people. The cost of living is the predominant issue I hear about. Yes, although the public narrative seeks to ignore them, there are also Aboriginal people who will not vote for it. Quality information needs to reach people, regardless of where they live and of whether they've formed a position.

If the process for referenda needs to be changed then it should not be made up on the run. These changes, without proper consultation and interrogation, should not become a precedent for future referenda. This bill suggests a number of non-controversial changes to the act to bring the operation of referenda into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. These positions have consistently been advocated to the government by the opposition. We will support a bill that allows for a referendum process that informs voters and a process with integrity based on precedent, whether you live in Pukatja, Port Augusta or Peterborough.

We heard from the Australian Electoral Commission that when they've provided mailed material to voters during elections 40 per cent of recipients used that documentation as a main source of information in casting their vote. We also know that electoral events are increasingly influenced by misinformation. The ACCC has published data that has reported that 92 per cent of the respondents to the ACCC news survey had 'some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming' and that 'analysis has identified concerning consumer and competition harms across a range of digital platform services that are widespread, entrenched, and systemic'. Official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will increase trust and integrity in 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 know there will be a significant number of organisations and participants in this referendum who are not associated with political parties or who do not regularly participate in electoral events. Having a single point of coordination for an audit process for donations and for reporting suspected interference is the best way to ensure the integrity of the referendum. They have even acknowledged that political parties sometimes struggle to get this right. We are seeking an assurance that, once these bodies are established, there is a guarantee of equal funding—if any is provided—to each side, to ensure that neither side is advantaged and that they can comply with the disclosure and regulatory regimes at the referendum.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 governs how the government must conduct a referendum. It is similar to the Commonwealth Electoral Act's role in governing the process and procedures in conducting an election. The act includes how a referendum's donations and regulations will operate, how the pre-poll voting, scrutineering and counting will operate and how the newly introduced foreign interference regime will operate. Any change must be made in an organised way, not made up on the run, for a process that has the potential to result in a change to our most important document, our Constitution.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Consideration of constitutional change should be careful, should be balanced and should be thoughtful, and that consideration should be made without undue or nefarious influence. We live in an age rife with misinformation and attempts at foreign interference in the Australian political landscape. With the vast uptake of social media across the world, it is my concern that it has become increasingly difficult for people to find fair and honest coverage that does not already affirm their previous convictions. Modern politics is siloed. Views are echoed in partisan safe spaces, rarely challenged and barely understood. Social media was to be the great leveller, but, instead, the use of social media in campaigning has become the great builder of walls.

For an undertaking as important as the proposed amendments to our Constitution, the independence of the media, freedom from misinformation and the countering of foreign interference are key to a sustainable, democratic outcome. However, sadly, the Labor government does not seem to think that the sanctity of our referenda is so important. When it comes to the Voice referendum, the Labor government has consistently been dodgy with the detail, on top of providing no information to the Australian people about what the Voice to Parliament would look like in practice. With this bill, they effectively want to halt any form of independent public discourse by killing off any form of serious, balanced, democratic debate.

A constitutional referendum is a rare thing. It has been pointed out by senators in this chamber that it comes along once every 24 or 25 years. It is because it comes along so rarely that we should ensure that our consideration of the question is done without recourse to allegations of gerrymandering the result. This is what we face today, because Australians rarely change the Constitution. We've had 44 referendums since Federation, only eight of which have passed. For a third of Australian voters, this will be their first referendum, so we need to do this properly and we need to do this thoughtfully. We've had the time to do this slowly, but, unfortunately, we have a Labor government who are playing politics with constitutional change and playing politics with the unity of this country. That is a shameful thing.

We need to ensure that every Australian has the right and the obligation not only to hear the arguments in favour of constitutional change and, as importantly, the arguments against constitutional change but also to hear the arguments free from misinformation and free from foreign interference. I am concerned as someone who has spent most of his life not only campaigning for the centre-right of politics but also campaigning for freedom, not just in this country but in emerging democracies around this world. It is my concern that we have a government in this country who are abusing the democratic process and are attempting to gerrymander a result. That does concern me, and that is why our position has been clear-cut from the get-go.

The position of the coalition has been so clear. We must restore the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases. There must be an establishment of 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations, and those campaign organisations must be appropriately funded. I refer to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and their gloriously titled Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, a report on an inquiry which Senator Cadell and I participated in over the Christmas break. Doesn't that tell you something—that over the Christmas break this Labor government referred this bill to an inquiry to be conducted when Australia was on holidays? Of course, being senators, we don't take holidays, unlike the riffraff in the other place, so we happily participated in this inquiry. The coalition senators brought forward a dissenting report not only disagreeing with many of the government's proposals but also, for those who might be listening at home, agreeing with where the government wanted to update the bill to bring it in line with how federal elections are run. It is important that on some issues like that there is a bipartisan approach.

But when it comes to constitutional change and when the government, over the Christmas period, had inquiries on, I think, 21 December and maybe 9 January, it's almost like they were trying to hide something—trying to hide that they were going to change this bill and change how referendums are conducted in this country. That meant that members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters did not have sufficient time to scrutinise witnesses and the proposed bills. But, more importantly, it limited the ability of Australians to find out what the government was up to.

We're very fortunate that we have wonderful organisations like the Institute of Public Affairs, which I'm a member of—just to clear that conflict of interest. They did an analysis of the submissions that were put in to this inquiry, and they found out that, from the 78 submissions, where a view was expressed for the need to have or not have a pamphlet, 97 per cent of those submissions expressed a clear opinion in favour of a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet. I raise that because Labor didn't want to have a pamphlet. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. We welcome Labor's backflip—that is to be commended—but I would ask that Labor and Senator Farrell be versatile when it comes to backflips and that they do similar backflips in relation to the designation of official 'yes' and 'no' bodies, as well as the equal funding of 'yes' and 'no' bodies. It is my concern that, regardless of your view on the Voice and whether you are 'yes' or 'no', you should have the view that the process should be thoughtful, carefully considered and without favour to either side.

I'm a student of politics, which is a polite way of saying I'm a nerd. What I've observed, and what I would warn the government about, is what happened in the United Kingdom less than a decade ago. The political establishment, the sporting establishment, the business establishment—the establishment—were all in favour of the UK remaining in the European Union. There was a referendum that was promised by David Cameron. It was an election commitment. What that referendum campaign showed is that when the government take people for granted and when the government effectively attempt to gerrymander the result of a referendum, the mob out there will sometimes have a different opinion. My observation of the remain or Brexit referendum was that the remain side won every single opinion poll up until the votes were counted and Brexit won. I would encourage the government to be so careful, because they are bringing forward a referendum that they have not explained to the Australian people and will not explain to the Australian people.

Peter Dutton—my leader, the leader of the coalition and the Leader of the Liberal Party—has put 15 questions to this Labor government and received no answers. That is such arrogance. It is so sad that people would call for good manners in the demonstration of the political process yet fail to demonstrate such manners themselves. It is so important that there is a consideration here of what is being proposed substantively in the referendum. It is just as important that, as senators who are protectors of the state's rights and who stand up against the excessive behaviour of the executive, we ensure that this house of review holds the government to account and makes appropriate changes and amendments to this bill. That's so that when the referendum is put forward later this year, the Australian people—the people to whom we are accountable and the people who are our bosses—can make the decision with as much information as possible in front of them and with information is not subject to people who do not have Australia's best interests at heart.

Only a few weeks ago, the director-general of ASIO told Australians that we are seeing the greatest level of foreign interference in Australia's history. Surely we should look at some simple, practical steps that can put a structure around this process and help our regulators and help our agencies manage the referendum.

We know that there has been foreign influence in other countries' elections. In Canada, their intelligence agencies uncovered plots to interfere in their 2021 election in order to create a minority government. According to secret documents published by the Globe and Mail, Chinese officials in Canada said that Beijing wanted a minority Canadian government so that parties in parliament would be 'fighting each other'. This is one of a long list of foreign influence campaigns that have been revealed publicly not just in North America but in Europe and elsewhere. We are not immune. We know that we've had our own parties targeted, with reports that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party have been victims of state sponsored hacking.

On those grounds alone, we think there's good reason—it is sensible—to have a formal structure around the referendum that allows a pamphlet to go to every household and that allows there to be 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, that says who can help with the management of campaign donations, and that has equal funding for those campaigns so that we do not have in Australian politics the nefarious influence of big money attempting to change the Constitution against the will of the Australian people.

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

I also rise today to speak against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 that's before the Australian Senate. As Senator McGrath has so eloquently stated, a referendum to change the founding document of this nation, the Australian Constitution, is not something that can be taken lightly. It is particularly incumbent on those of us elected to this place that we uphold the highest standards of integrity when examining the process by which any such referendum should be conducted. In fact, given the speech by Senator McGrath, it is a little ironic that the Albanese Labor government, who, prior to being elected to govern, talked so much about transparency and integrity, would actually bring this bill to the parliament, because there is nothing in this bill that lives up to the standards that Mr Albanese said he would be setting for himself in terms of transparency and integrity.

It is irrelevant what question is being put to the Australian people. Any question which will change the Australian Constitution—in this case, to establish a voice to parliament—is a momentous occasion. In many ways, we are the protectors of this nation's founding document, and each and every one of us in this place should take that role very, very seriously. There is no doubt that we live in an age where information is ubiquitous, as is disinformation. Therefore, it is important that the government takes the lead—which it is not doing, with the bill that it has presented before the parliament—by providing clear information to Australians and delivering a strong referendum process.

Those of us on this side of the chamber believe that the government is falling short—in fact, I would say well short—of what should be done. It took pressure from our side for the government to commit to producing pamphlets to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases. How do you actually answer the Australian people when they ask, 'When will I be receiving the 'yes' and 'no' cases'? You have to say to them: 'Guess what? The government did not want you to receive a "yes" or "no" case.' They are actually lost for words and cannot believe that a government would want to hold a referendum without formally providing them with a pamphlet that clearly outlines both the 'yes' and 'no' cases. This should never have been something that was in dispute. A responsible government engaging in a referendum process should always, unless it had something to hide, have been willing to outline the two cases in such a way.

We also believe that the official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations should be properly established and appropriately funded by the government. Again, are you a government that believe in integrity and transparency or are they just weasel words that fall nicely from your tongues? We cannot support a bill that does not have a plan for how to properly regulate donations or foreign interference or that doesn't provide a plan for how the scrutiny of the referendum will be conducted. Again, this is a referendum to change the founding document of this nation, the Australian Constitution, and it is not something that anybody in this country should take lightly. And yet, with the bill presented to the Australian Senate, that is exactly what the Albanese government is doing. All of the issues that have been raised could have been resolved by the establishment of appropriate and equally funded official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations.

This bill will determine the settings for how the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is conducted. However, what the Albanese government is, I would say, almost deliberately failing to tell the Australian people is that they should be very, very aware that the changes included in this bill could also be used for future referenda. Whilst the bill makes a number of non-controversial changes to the act to bring the operation of referenda in line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act, it also makes fundamental changes to how referenda themselves will be conducted in Australia.

We have made our position clear: we will support a bill that allows for a referendum with informed voters—because why wouldn't you want the Australian voter to be informed about what they are actually voting on?—and a process with integrity based on precedent. We advocated for a pamphlet because, without one, a dangerous precedent would have been set. This would have been the first time no pamphlet was provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When was that?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to 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.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill proposes to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, and, in doing so, threatens to undermine the way we do referendums and, by extension, to undermine the Australian Constitution—the bedrock of the institution I stand in today. The referendum act sets out clear regulations on how donations to referendum campaigns are made, ensuring that the process is transparent and fair. However, Labor's proposed amendments to the act, contained in this bill, threaten to undermine these regulations, potentially allowing for foreign interference in our electoral processes. It is a crying shame. It is our duty to ensure that these processes remain free from outside influence and that the voices of all Australians are heard equally.

While the bill does make some noncontroversial changes to the act to bring it in line with Commonwealth Electoral Act, there are still three key issues that remain. Firstly, the removal of the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases for changing the Constitution is a significant concern. While the government has announced its intention to restore the pamphlet, we will reserve our position until a final amendment is presented. The provision of an official 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet has been a longstanding feature of referenda in Australia, with the first requirement for a pamphlet being implemented in 1912. This is the first time there has been no official pamphlet provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup. I'm reminded of a great quote from the late Roger Scruton, that 'good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created.' I remind those opposite that perhaps there is a reason that we have had official pamphlets for more than 100 years. Perhaps it is because it's a good idea. The foundations of democracy are held strong by having a well-informed public, and by attempting to create a much-less-informed and possibly misinformed public debate is simply a low and deceiving act by those opposite, who claimed an election platform of transparency, little of which we have seen since they were elected.

When I first read the Attorney-General's Department media release on this matter, I couldn't help but laugh. They say:

The next referendum will be the first in the digital age. There is no longer any need for taxpayers to pay for a pamphlet to be sent to every household.

The gall of a government that spends money like nobody's business, with one of the biggest taxing-and-spending agendas in our nation's history, to all of a sudden implement a policy of austerity on our democracy, of all things—it is laughable.

There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet: 1919, 1926 and 1928. None of the circumstances that applied in those cases apply to the current situation. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between parties and government. In contrast, there is not complete agreement on the issue of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament, but there is time to produce a pamphlet and it is possible to get agreement on how to argue the cases. Furthermore, research has shown that people use official material when deciding how to vote. The Australian Electoral Commission has reported that, when people are provided mailed material in elections, 40 per cent of recipients will use this documentation as their main source of information when casting their vote. This suggests that an official pamphlet would be a very valuable resource for voters, particularly given the increasing influence of misinformation in electoral events.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has reported that 92 per cent of respondents to their news surveys had some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming, and that analysis has identified widespread, entrenched and systemic concerning consumer and competition harms across a range of digital platform services. An official pamphlet would provide voters with a reliable and trustworthy source of information about the proposed changes to the Constitution and would help to counteract the influence of misinformation.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Van, it being 1.30, I'm going to call on senators' statements. You will be in continuation as the debate on this bill resumes.