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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About two weeks ago I spent five days on the ground in Alice Springs. It wasn't my first trip to Alice, and no doubt it won't be my last. I've always been a big believer in listening and talking to communities on the ground. I find it's the best way to find out what is really going on. Alice Springs is full of people trying to do the best that they possibly can under the circumstances to make their lives and their children's lives better. I arrived just after the alcohol restrictions had been reinstated, and I was told by the locals and the police that the rate of violence and crime had already started to fall dramatically.

Senators in this place might like to know that most of the Aboriginal organisations in Alice warned the Northern Territory government not to lift the alcohol ban. But, like too many in government, they didn't listen. I met with many Aboriginal people and organisations, again providing great service to their community. I want to give a few examples. Jason, with his partner Steph, runs a boxing academy—a small club hosting between 20 and 50 kids every day at the Alice Springs Youth and Community Centre. They are operating out of a tin shed that is not fit for purpose. The kids there love it though. They are happy, they are strong, and they are fit. Jason and Steph work hard, and they get almost no government assistance. The kids see the same faces every day asking them, 'How're you going?—three simple words. Consistency and structure are what these kids need, what so many of us in this place probably already take for granted. These kids need to know that they are safe and that their homes are safe.

Alice Springs is not short of organisations providing services across the board. That may be a good thing, but what I keep hearing from the Aboriginal people in Alice, and abroad, is, 'There's lots of money in Alice, but things aren't getting any better.' Gee, I don't know how many times I've heard that, after chasing for that cashless debit card over the last nine years. Where's all the money going? Where's all the money?

In the 2021-22 budget the Australian government allocated $5.7 billion to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy over four years to 2024-25. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm like many other taxpayers, and we have no problem giving taxpayers' money when it's going to programs and when people need that support, but we need to know if it is working and, if it isn't, why we are still funding it. Why? The Minister for Indigenous Australians says the Voice will improve the situation—yeah, okay—because the gap isn't closing fast enough. It's not even close, especially when you consider the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent.

Another place I visited in Alice was the Central Australian Women's Legal Service. The demand on their services has been increasing dramatically. These amazing women and people in there that work want to do more. They get lots of requests from remote communities, especially across the whole Central Desert. There is a huge amount of need for regular legal education. They want to do more but they don't have the funding.

Last May all of the women's legal services across Australia lobbied hard and got $129 million. But according to the Central Australian Women's Legal Service, 'The funding has not reached the intended beneficiaries, but has been distributed broadly to include mainstream service providers.' What's new? In other words, the money didn't go to where it was most needed. It wasn't targeted. What's new? Government money that's not well targeted. I would've thought that you guys in the red would learn from nine years in the blue. Not well targeted—now, don't get me wrong, I am all for funding programs that work. And listening to Aboriginal people and community is crucial, because you do know what, not all communities are the same. How about that. You wouldn't know that unless you'd been visiting them on a regular basis year in, year out.

I spent a lot of time in Alice just listening. What I heard over and over is that there is cash, lots of cash, but we have almost no data on what is actually working and isn't working. Could it be that there are too many organisations, shopfronts? We need more accountability and transparency. We need more rigorous oversight on organisations that don't report on their success or the lack of success of programs. Please don't think that I am just having a go at Aboriginal organisations, because I can assure you past government ministers have also had their paws in the honeypot.

Part of the royalties from the mining companies on Aboriginal land are invested in the Aboriginals Benefit Account—or ABA. From 2006 to 2008 the federal government took some of this money away from land councils and gave federal ministers more control over where the cash went. In 2006 minister Mal Brough went into the honeypot to fund a festival—I'm not sure how that's helping Indigenous people—in his own electorate, mind you. How about that. How convenient. I'd love to know what the positive outcomes of that were.

Then in 2017 the then minister, senator Nigel Scullion, used an ABA grant to pay for an Indigenous employment program headed up by—you wouldn't guess it—the President of the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party. Jobs for mates. The government talks about unprecedented investment to close the gap. Oh dear. All Australians want to know is that their money is going to programs that are effective and are closing the gap. That's all we want to know. I've seen the gap with my very own eyes for way too long. I've seen young Aboriginal girls with babies on their hips and tracking bracelets on the ankles, and I tell you it bloody brings tears to my eyes. That's where we're at. We have girls who aren't even old enough to be mothers. They are children having children themselves with bracelets around their ankles. That's where we are at.

I met a young teenager who was described to me as 'Alice Springs's best car thief.' This young boy has been in and out of detention. When he gets out he doesn't go home because his home isn't safe. And he isn't the only one. He sleeps under a bridge and steals food until he ends up back in detention again. That is his safety net. That is very sad. The detention centre is his safety net. That is where he is at. And like I said, he is not the only one. I have to ask: where are the services at the front gate of the detention centre? Why is this a revolving door for this young man and many others? Where's the money going?

As I said, this wasn't my first visit to Alice. In 2020 I spent some time in Alice and a lot of time in communities in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia. There were highlights and there were lowlights. The highlight of my trip was the community of Milingimbi in the Top End. This community has its own thriving design business and their own credit union.

The most heartbreaking day was another community in the Northern Territory making concrete crosses as part of their Work for the Dole program. This is what we did to a 17-year-old in one of these communities. This was his working for the dole, painting a white cross. And you wonder why they're taking their lives. That is what your programs are paying for and it is shameful. It is shameful.

We need solutions and we need programs that work. Those solutions must be done in consultation with local communities and must include programs that have a track record of working and must continue to show that they are working. We must get that. We have to get that out of the taxpayers' money. If they are tracked, we know that they are still working and are making positive change. That is what we want to see. Here is one for you. Here is one that you could do today. The government of the day could put this in today and make a significant difference, even before we go to vote in the referendum. Here it is: the old community development employment project—the CDEP. Every Aboriginal person I have spoken to over the last 10 years has told me the same thing—bring back the CDEP. That worked. It worked. It worked. It worked. I have heard that from the white community. Everybody in those communities know it worked.

While a staff member in my office was researching the CDEP, she came across a Curtin University study published in 2007 that looked at all of the government employment programs, what worked and what didn't. Of all the schemes that past governments have tried, the professor who did this study said that the CDEP was the most enduring and most successful jobs program we have ever put in place in this country, ever. But you would know that if you had been running around like I have for the last nine years on the job. I don't care what electorate you're in. When things are hurting in this country, get your boots on and get on the job.

The other point made to me is that programs that are not designed with the local Aboriginal communities do not work. The CDEP, also known as the CDP, prioritised giving Aboriginal remote Aboriginal communities the skills and the hardware to build, repair and care for their own communities. This is where we want them.

I called up an old army buddy while I was in Alice. He's married to an Indigenous woman and has been working with Indigenous organisations for the last 20 years. In the days of the old CDEP program, my mate got to take on apprentices for four years. But guess what? Now he is only able to offer them six months. They cannot finish their apprenticeships, so how do the Indigenous kids get a trade? Not in their communities—not helpful. He told me about the houses that have been designed with Aboriginal people involved. They were involved. They basically said, 'This is what I want.' He designed it. They said, 'Yes, this is exactly what we need.' So those houses were absolutely suited for Aboriginal people. He also told me that all of those houses, every single one of them, 20 years later are still standing strong because they were built for them. The CDEP's focus was creating jobs on community that increased cultural connection and gave those communities ongoing practical skills—money well spent, I would have thought; a system that works, I would have thought. If a system was not broken, we would have left it there, I would have thought but no, not politicians.

The government has changed its focus and decided that it was just about how many people got jobs. This is where we got to. This was the exchange: 'any jobs—it didn't matter—any jobs'. But this was a non-starter for remote communities where there weren't any jobs to begin with. The government just wanted statistics—how unusual—of who got a job and did not really care what sort of jobs they were given, and that is why they don't stay in those jobs. Common sense prevails—hello? What is even worse is that when the government stopped CDEP and CDEP programs, the local councils took away the roles, so those communities can no longer do their own repairs and maintenance. There we go—back to scratch. What a waste of money. We did this year in and year out. It was working and we removed it. That is what we did up here—shameful. It is baffling to me that the fact of whether a program works or doesn't work does not appear to matter what to the Commonwealth, not one bit. The money is often handed over, no questions asked, with little or no accountability—let's be honest.

But what people on the ground are telling me is that this has been going on for years, and I have seen it going on for years. What Alice does not need is more money thrown at it with no positive results. We must have positive change. The communities are screaming out for it. Alice Springs and the people of Alice Springs need services that are well targeted at the problems they are experiencing there today. They need programs that have accountability and are trackable. They need programs that are making positive change and they need programs that achieve what they say they will achieve. I can assure you: you will be hearing it all from Tasmania because it is coming, because we have the same problems down there. It's not just in the Northern Territory.

The Northern Territory Regional Controller, Dorelle Anderson, has been tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of all these services. That's a great start, but what are the criteria? What are the parameters? When we rang her office, we were told that no criteria were set as they were still in the consultation phase. How ridiculous! And you wonder why you don't have success up there! When will Australians see where the money is going and what programs are actually working to make positive changes in their lives? The minister says that having a voice will fix these issues. That's all well and good, but we need solutions today and you could actually fix the solutions today.

All the families and kids of Central Australia are hurting, and the single biggest message I got from Alice Springs in the last few weeks is that less can be more. Before making any more decisions to throw more money at Central Australia, let's make sure those programs work and that they'll stand the test of time. That's our job. Again, I have to ask: are there too many organisations? We have about 40 of them in Tasmania, and some of them, like land councils, are exempt from FOIs. Seriously! Why are they exempt from FOIs? Aren't they getting the job done? Are you too embarrassed? Is it a smokescreen? It's time we had FOIs; we should be entitled to FOI anything, pretty much, especially when it comes to Indigenous matters. That's so we can make sure we're getting the results that we need.

There's a motion coming to this place which has been sitting there since the last sitting. I will be supporting the call for transparency around the funding of all large organisations that get taxpayer money. It's time it happened. The federal Labor government doesn't seem to be interested. That really baffles me: they're going to vote against it, and I find that absolutely disgraceful. I want them to know that one of the biggest problems they have out there after nine years is that there's no transparency. There's money going everywhere to Indigenous places out there and we have no results. But they don't want to know why. It's time they were hauled over the coals—hauled up here and asked questions about where the money is going and what it has achieved. It's a fair question.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people Queensland and Australia, I note that this Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 is about updating the mechanics of referendum voting, and is entirely appropriate and necessary. It has, though, unearthed yet another Labor Party deceit on its Voice proposal. While many senators have chosen to speak about the Voice proposal itself, I will speak primarily about the bill's mechanics. My comments on the Voice proposal for now are that, if passed at a constitutional referendum, it will entrench and deepen the neglect and suppression of Aboriginals in our country. It will do so in favour of the Aboriginal industry, which fathoms the bank accounts of parasitic white and black academics, consultants, lawyers, activists, ignorant and uncaring virtue-signallers, and politicians. That's at the expense of taxpayers and every day Aboriginals and communities across our nation.

The flood of amendments from across the Senate reemphasises the need to update the referendum process. The amendments, though, include one that is very disturbing to me: namely, Senator Pocock's addition of schedule 9, on the referendum pamphlet review panel. It flushes out yet another example of the teal Senator Pocock working with the Labor Party to advance Labor's deceit. This amendment is disguised as Senator Pocock's and yet it seems to be, in reality, a Labor Party amendment attempting to enable Labor to take control of the referendum pamphlet's content. Firstly, my understanding is that if this amendment is successful then a Labor minister, Ms Linda Burney, who has already declared support for the 'yes' case, will nominate a Labor controlled review panel that must approve the pamphlet's contents. There's no requirement for a balanced view, and the panel can censor and exclude material. I suspect that the 'no' campaign material will be unfairly censored. The panel will include people who were part of the working groups in favour of the 'yes' campaign: academics and other ministerial appointments. So the panel will be weighted in favour of a 'yes' vote.

Secondly, why is this panel not comprised of persons with an independent background? Thirdly, why is the panel not designed to represent all the varied views from across all the parties and Independents in parliament, and, especially, from all across our nation? This is a terrible amendment, designed to appoint a pamphlet review panel whose purpose is to produce a biased pamphlet with taxpayer funding. It's an abuse of taxpayer funds.

This seems to be yet another example of teal Senator Pocock working for and serving the Labor Party. While I will support this bill at the moment, and I will support most amendments, if the teal Pocock amendment is successful, I will oppose the bill. I cannot support such a dodgy amendment. I will wait, though, and listen to opposition speakers raising specific concerns regarding funding, tax deductibility, audits of campaigns, and security from international interference.

The Labor-Greens-teal campaign for the Voice is becoming a train wreck for Labor. The Voice is a racist proposal that will divide the nation on race. It's based on race. What happened to the fundamental principle of democracy that started with ancient Greece 3,000 years ago—namely, that every person has an equal voice and equal vote? As we have seen with the Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock behaviour in the Senate, guillotining and ramming through damaging bills with horrific future consequences for our nation in just the few months this government has been in power, the abolition and bypassing of democracy is yet another trait of this Albanese government that is a reincarnation of a Soviet style politburo. History shows what happened to that after the people endured decades of needless, inhuman pain and suffering.

In Australia we have one flag, we have one community, we are one nation. We must stay as one nation made of people from many backgrounds, all with an equal voice.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, and I will make the point at the outset that this is a very important piece of legislation. This country, quite reasonably, has very strong regard for its Constitution, its founding document. It took a considerable period of time for that document to be negotiated amongst the states when they came together to form the Commonwealth. There have been about 44 attempts to modify it since Federation, and only eight of those have been successful. Australians, quite rightly, have very, very strong regard for our founding document and the form of governance that it provides to us.

I think, in my conversations when talking to people out in the broader community, that document provides us with the best form of democracy and the best form of governance in the world, despite its failings. We are very fortunate to live in a country that has the constitutional foundation that we have and the structure and systems of governance that we have. We may complain about them at times, but if you look around the world, where else would you want to live and under what form of governance would you like to live? I think here is, if not the best, one of the best. So it's in that context that the debate on this piece of legislation is extremely important.

The provisions for referendums have been established in legislation going back over a hundred years. Each time there is a referendum there is a machinery bill that sets out the parameters for that referendum process. Quite frankly, this bill should not be controversial. This bill should not be controversial. It should be within our capacity, within our remit, to sit down and agree the terms under which this bill is managed. The opposition doesn't come to this debate to be political about the issue of the referendum; that's a point of discussion for another debate, quite frankly. What we should be able to do is effectively have a situation and a circumstance where, absent the issue of referendum, absent the question, the provisions largely remain the same.

It's worth noting that provisions have evolved over time, and for good reason. The issues that the opposition is very reasonably raising in this debate come about because of the evolution of things over time. We very much appreciate the fact that the government has been prepared at this point to, for example, agree to a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet. That's a very important document. It provides information—clean information—which is important for the Australian community, as a part of this debate, to provide the arguments for the 'yes' and the 'no' case to Australians, not just English-speaking Australians but those speaking a whole range of different languages. That good information will be provided, prepared by participants in this place, as to the 'yes' and 'no' cases. We appreciate the fact that the government has come onboard with that.

But if you look at the broader circumstances, where we sit in the world of information right now, the government's refusal to accept an official 'yes' and 'no' case that provides some process of oversight to those 'yes' and 'no' cases—the capacity to track donations through those cases, the capacity for the 'yes' and 'no' cases to assist people with false information, in this world of information overload—is greatly concerning. The opposition doesn't raise this to be obstructionist; we raise this genuinely, because we want a good process. We want the opportunity for people to have their say. We want the opportunity for Australians to listen and hear those messages, to understand which are the effective, appropriate and official messages. I really don't understand why the government isn't prepared to agree to very reasonable requests that we will make in our amendments to this legislation.

I think the unwillingness of the government to agree to those reasonable requests gets this whole referendum process off to a very bad start. I said earlier in my presentation that only eight of 44 referendums have been successful. The only times they have been hugely successful—which is what we want with an issue such as this, if we go down the path—has been when both major parties of politics were onboard. The fact that, this early in the process, the government is not prepared to go along with sensible, reasonable amendments that the opposition is proposing for the purpose of good process raises real alarm bells with me, because in my view that will effectively reflect right down through the referendum process. It's almost as though the government is trying to sabotage this process from the outside.

I understand that the issue of the Voice is something the government took to the election, and they take their victory at the election as a mandate to progress with that. I have no problem with that. I recall standing in the Great Hall at the beginning of this parliament, when we were undertaking those initial ceremonies for the opening of this parliament, thinking that we really do have to reconcile our place in this country with our First Australians. When I have conversations with people around this country they acknowledge the history of First Australians in this country before European settlement. They don't have a problem with that being recognised in our foundational document—the document that decides how we're governed—but they want to have a say, appropriately, in how that's put together.

So, in my view and from my conversations, the only way that that has a chance is if the process that puts the referendum in place, the processes around deciding the question of the referendum, involve an appropriate level of bipartisanship that will lead to that view across the parliament as to the question that's going to be asked, and the perspective on it. The Prime Minister appointed a special panel to advise on the Voice, without any reference to the opposition. When we asked questions about it at estimates the response was, 'They're all good people. Who would you replace?', which is not the answer.

It might very well be that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition could sit down, have a conversation and agree on the same people, but the Prime Minister didn't do that. The Prime Minister went to Garma with a proposed question for the referendum, without any reference to the Leader of the Opposition. I acknowledge that he wants to maintain momentum in this debate—I get that—but a consultation with the Leader of the Opposition would have brought a completely different perspective with respect to how the Prime Minister was trying to bring the country together on this question on which, we all need to acknowledge, there is a range of different views.

I'm concerned that those processes, including the one that we're debating today, undermine the possibility of success in the referendum. Some people might say, 'Fine, that's good. That's our view. That supports our case,' as it may be, but the opposition is being extremely genuine in this place. We put our views in the additional comments to the Senate report on this legislation. We have been very genuine in our discussions with the government in relation to this legislation and the amendments that we want. We have been very upfront with the reasons we want them.

I don't want Google or Facebook or Twitter or any of those other big tech platforms determining or editing what goes on those platforms in relation to this referendum, and I don't think they want to be the arbiters of what is true and not true on those platforms either, but without the recommendations that we've made to the government, we don't have the capacity to do that. Quite frankly, that's a sovereign question. On what basis should we subcontract, should we forgo, should we give away the capacity to determine what's true and what's not true in relation to this debate to those global tech platforms? We've seen examples of foreign interference in other elections—for example, in Canada recently. In the Canadian circumstance it wasn't necessarily about picking a winner or a loser or deciding which side of politics would govern; it was about creating division. That was the rationale for the foreign interference. We don't want to see that in this debate. What we're looking for, what the Prime Minister has said he wants to see and what we would like to see is a process that brings this country together, not divide us.

Why would we not have in place processes that would allow us to be the arbiters of what's not true and what is true? Why would we not do that? I genuinely do not understand why the government is resisting well-thought-out, considered, sensible proposals that are based on the realities of today. We talk about foreign interference. We've passed foreign interference laws. We talk about the way the big tech companies operate. We've talked about funding and about foreign interference through funding of campaigns. Why would we not put in place provisions that would allow us to monitor that? That's what we're asking for. I don't think it's outrageous. I don't think it's anything other than a request to put in place good process.

There are different views with respect to the Voice. Those arguments can legitimately be had once we get to that point in time. But I can't believe—I really cannot believe—that we are having a disagreement over the mechanics of the process. The Australian people will, in a heartbeat, see through any attempt or perceived attempt to manipulate the process on this referendum. They will see through it in a heartbeat. Their BS detectors are pretty good. They know.

I have to say that the support for the Voice that we've seen over recent times is being affected by the way the government is managing this process, and the BS detectors are going off big time. All the government needs to do to mitigate that is to sit down, talk to the opposition and take up our considered, reasonable proposals to ensure that there is a good, proper and effective process in place that ensures there is integrity in the referendum system and the process that we put in place. Australians value, and will protect, our Constitution appropriately. We know how conservative they are.

When we're at this stage of the process and we're having arguments about the integrity of the process, I think the government runs a great risk, sadly, of undermining the whole process, because we should not be having this argument right now. We should be agreeing on the appropriate process for our referendum to be run with integrity and controlled by Australia and Australians, without interference from outside, so that when we go to vote, at whatever point in time the Prime Minister decides the question will be put, people know that the process is being conducted with integrity but also, importantly, with support from across the parliament. I think all of those things make a difference, and I urge the government to consider our recommendations. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to contribute to the debate on the incredibly important legislation that we have before us today, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. I want to make it very clear from the outset that, sadly, I'm not in a position to support this bill as it currently stands, because of Labor's complete lack of support for fairness and integrity in this bill. Instead, it is quite clear they are seeking to stack the deck in favour of their upcoming referendum question and, potentially, for future referendums. While this bill does contain many non-contentious and much-needed reforms to the machinery mechanisms, there are three issues of grave concern to those on this side of the chamber. There has been some movement by the government—and we wait to see the detail in the amendments—but there are remaining concerns.

The bill removes the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases for changing the Constitution. I welcome the government's movement on this but, again, remain highly sceptical about what they will put forward. This information has been provided to all Australians in every referendum since 1928. For nearly 100 years, this information has been provided to assist Australians in their deliberations, including on whether they will support a proposed change to the Constitution. I also do agree with the general proposition that the parliament should treat changes to the machinery of referenda without considering what future referendum questions may actually be. The act itself has not been used since 1999, and it clearly has not kept pace with changes to the Electoral Act that have been made progressively since then. Since the introduction of the referendum pamphlet back in 1912, there have been only three occasions when a pamphlet has not been provided. It has been provided, as I said, in every referendum since 1928.

The AEC provided a lot of very helpful information to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on this matter. The cost would be about $10 million, and it noted that, for every election, around 40 per cent of Australians rely on the printed material that the commission provides. The reasons for that are very simple. Australians trust and rely on official information from the Australian government, and that has never more important than today, in the days of fake news, social media algorithms and echo chambers, where what we see, read and learn about is fed to us in a highly sophisticated way. It has given rise to what is now called fake news. In this age of disinformation, it's important that the government take the lead and provide clear information to Australians and a strong referendum process.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Reynolds. It is now 1.30 pm. You will be in continuation. We will now move to senators' two-minute statements.