Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

FARRELL (—) (): I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

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

Minister, can you confirm that, if a 'no' campaign organisation sufficiently applied for deductible gift recipient status, it would be granted?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator. The rules applying to the 'no' case are the same as those applying to the 'yes' case.

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

I also want to be very clear in my understanding that, while there is no funding provided for campaigns for or against the proposal, there will be equal treatment to the campaigns for or against the proposal.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's correct, Senator.

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

I also note that, while there is a prohibition on government expenditure that is included in these amendments, that prohibition on government expenditure will not preclude expenditure on a neutral civics education campaign and activity.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's correct, Senator.

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

Minister, can I also confirm that any activity in a civics education program or activity is in fact going to be neutral?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's correct, Senator.

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

I would like to note that the opposition will be supporting the amendment. We would very much like to thank the government for the constructive way in which it has engaged with the opposition to ensure that this bill, in its final form, is presented in such a way that the opposition can support it. Minister Farrell, in particular, and his staff have demonstrated good faith and have worked very hard with me and my office on this bill. We have many more questions that we will be asking of the government throughout this process, but I can confirm that we will be supporting this amendment.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hume for that confirmation and, again, reiterate my thanks to her and her staff for the constructive way in which they've engaged with the government on this legislation. I think it's an example of how the government and opposition can work together constructively to get the best result for the Australian people.

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

Just to clarify, Senator Farrell, I might need you to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet QE100, if that's what you're talking about.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear, we're not proceeding with the amendment on sheet ZD205. I seek leave to move government amendments on sheets PX149, PX150, PX151, QE100 and ZB195 together, noting that Senator David Pocock has circulated an amendment to the amendment on sheet ZB195.

Leave granted.

I move:

Sheet PX149

(1) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 26), after item 6, insert:

6A Subsection 89(2)

Omit "one person to act as a scrutineer during the scrutiny at each counting centre", substitute "persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre, but the number of scrutineers appointed under this subsection must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre".

6B Subsection 89(3)

Omit "one person to act as a scrutineer during the scrutiny at each counting centre in that State", substitute "persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre in that State, but the number of scrutineers appointed under this subsection must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre in that State".

6C Subsection 89(3A)

Omit "one person to act as a scrutineer during the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Territory", substitute "persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Territory, but the number of scrutineers appointed under this subsection must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Territory".

6D Subsection 89(4)

Omit "one person to act as a scrutineer during the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Northern Territory", substitute "persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Northern Territory, but the number of scrutineers appointed under this subsection must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Northern Territory".

Sheet PX150

(1) Schedule 4, item 8, page 41 (before line 3), before subitem (1), insert:

(1A) For the purposes of the definition of disclosure threshold in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, as inserted by this Schedule, the amount for an indexation year is not replaced if the indexation year begins during the period:

(a) beginning on the day after this subitem commences; and

(b) ending on polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of this subitem.

(1B) Subitem (1A) applies despite section 321A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

Sheet PX151

(1) Page 6 (after line 13), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A — Mobile polling

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

1 Subsection 51(5)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(5) A day notified under paragraph (4)(b) must be:

(a) if the voting day for the referendum is the same as that fixed for the polling at an election—any of the 12 days before voting day; or

(b) if the voting day for the referendum is not the same as that fixed for the polling at an election—any of the 19 days before voting day; or

(c) voting day; or

(d) a day to which the taking of votes of the electors at the referendum is adjourned.

2 After subsection 73AA(2)

Insert:

(2A) Without limiting paragraph (1)(a), a place specified to be a pre-poll voting office for a referendum may be a place that has been determined under paragraph 51(4)(a) to be a place that teams will visit for the purposes of taking votes under section 51 at the referendum.

3 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to referendums the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this Schedule.

(2) Schedule 2, item 4, page 7 (line 15 to 17), omit subsection 73AA(1AA), substitute:

(1AA) The day, or the earliest of days, declared under paragraph (1)(b) must not be earlier than:

(a) if the pre-poll voting office for a referendum is also a place that teams will visit for the purposes of taking votes under section 51 (about mobile booths) at the referendum—the day that is 19 days before the voting day for the referendum; or

(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the day that is 12 days before the voting day for the referendum.

Sheet QE100

(1) Clause 4, page 2 (lines 12 to 19), to be opposed.

(2) Page 17 (after line 15), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 3A — Commonwealth expenditure

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

1 At the end of paragraph 11(4)(c)

Add ", including salaries, remuneration, allowances and expenses payable under the Constitution, the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 and agreements for employment or engagement referred to in the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984".

2 At the end of section 11

Add:

(5) Subsection (4) applies in respect of expenditure incurred on or after the end of the day on which a proposed law to alter the Constitution passes the Parliament, as referred to in subsection (1) or (2).

(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (4) does not prevent the Commonwealth from expending money in relation to neutral public civics education and awareness activities.

(7) To avoid doubt, activities referred to in subsection (6) must not address the arguments for or against a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution.

(8) Subsection (4) does not prevent the Commonwealth from expending money in relation to meetings of the Constitutional Expert Group, the Referendum Engagement Group or the Referendum Working Group.

(9) Subsections (5) to (8) and this subsection are repealed at the start of the polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of this subsection.

Sheet ZB195

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 9 — Advertising blackout period

Broadcasting Services Act 1992

1 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 2

Insert:

referendum advertisement, in relation to a referendum, means an advertisement:

(a) that contains referendum matter (within the meaning of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984) that relates to that referendum; and

(b) in respect of the broadcasting of which the relevant licensee has received or is to receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration.

2 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 2 (definition of relevant period )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

relevant period:

(a) in relation to an election—means the period that commences at the end of the Wednesday before the polling day for the election and ends at the close of the poll on that polling day; and

(b) in relation to a referendum—means the period that commences at the end of the Wednesday before the voting day for the referendum and ends at the close of voting on that voting day.

3 After clause 3A of Schedule 2

Insert:

3B Broadcasting of referendum advertisements

(1) In this clause, broadcaster means:

(a) a commercial television broadcasting licensee; or

(b) a commercial radio broadcasting licensee; or

(c) a community broadcasting licensee; or

(d) a subscription television broadcasting licensee; or

(e) a person providing broadcasting services under a class licence.

(2) A broadcaster must not broadcast a referendum advertisement in relation to a referendum during the relevant period for the referendum.

4 Paragraphs 7(1)(j), 8(1)(i), 9(1)(i), 10(1)(i) and 11(1)(d) of Schedule 2

After "3A,", insert "3B,".

5 Paragraph 24(1)(a) of Schedule 6

After "3A,", insert "3B,".

6 Subclause 24(4) of Schedule 6

After "3A,", insert "3B,".

Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991

7 Subsection 45(1)

Omit "section 70C", substitute "sections 70C and 71".

8 After section 70C

Insert:

71 Broadcasting of referendum advertisements

(1) The SBS must not broadcast a referendum advertisement in relation to a referendum during the relevant period for the referendum.

(2) In this section:

referendum has the same meaning as in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

referendum advertisement, in relation to a referendum, means an advertisement:

(a) that contains referendum matter (within the meaning of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984) that relates to that referendum; and

(b) in respect of the broadcasting of which the SBS has received or is to receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration.

relevant period, in relation to a referendum, means the period that commences at the end of the Wednesday before the voting day for the referendum and ends at the close of voting on that voting day.

9 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to referendums the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this Schedule.

These government amendments seek to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. In respect of the pamphlet, the bill will retain a requirement for the Electoral Commissioner to distribute an official 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet containing arguments for and against a proposal to alter the Constitution—authorised by parliamentarians—to all enrolled Australian households. This change has been made following consultation, and it reflects a bipartisan approach to electoral reform.

In relation to the amendment to the expenditure restrictions in section 11(4) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, a decision to change our Constitution is a significant national event, and it has been more than two decades since a change has been proposed. In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government. It is therefore important that the government can fund civics education activities in relation to the upcoming referendum on the Voice. To enable such activities to be funded, the bill temporarily suspends expenditure restrictions in section 11 of the referendum act.

However, following further consultation, the government has decided to amend, rather than suspend, section 14(4). This amendment will leave the expenditure restrictions relating to funding 'yes' and 'no' arguments in place but will ensure that these restrictions do not prevent funding of neutral civics awareness activities to provide the information needed to ensure that all Australians can cast an informed vote. Neutral civics education activities are an important way to assist in combating misinformation about the Constitution, Australia's system of government and the referendum process.

Importantly, this amendment also ensures that the government can continue to support consultation with the Referendum Working Group, the Referendum Engagement Group and the Constitutional Expert Group. The referendum act does not provide for public funding of 'yes' or 'no' campaigns, and the government has confirmed on many occasions that it will not provide public funding for either a 'yes' or a 'no' campaign. These exemptions will automatically be repealed at the end of the current parliament.

On the expansion of the mobile polling period, the government supports the committee's recommendation to strengthen opportunities for enfranchisement and participation in the referendum, particularly of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including in remote communities. To support this outcome, the bill will expand the mobile polling period for referendums from 12 days to 19 days. Mobile polling is the primary voting mechanism for people living in remote locations. This will support the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct voting services in remote parts of Australia over an additional time period to increase participation and ensure that all voters have the chance to exercise their right and obligation to vote.

The government also made the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment Enfranchisement) Regulations 2023 to expand the forms of identification a voter is able to produce in order to enrol or update their enrolment to include Medicare numbers and Australian citizenship notice numbers. This will allow those individuals who have previously faced barriers to enrolment as a result of not having the required evidence of identification documents to participate in elections and referenda.

On the broadcasting blackout, the bill will be amended to extend the broadcasting blackout period of political and election advertisements during referendums in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. This will ensure that there is consistency in the blackout of advertisements across television and radio in the three days prior to polling day access, consistent with arrangements for federal elections. Consequential amendments will also be made to the Special Broadcasting Services Act 1991 to extend this broadcasting blackout to the SBS.

On scrutineers: scrutineers play a significant role in supporting the integrity of a referendum and trust in Australian democratic processes. The bill will be amended to align the number of persons that the Governor-General, state governors, chief ministers of the Australian Capital Territory and the administrator of the Northern Territory may appoint as scrutineers at a counting centre during the counting process, with the entitlement of registered political parties. This will support public confidence in the outcome of a referendum and is consistent with the entitlements of registered political parties.

On the issue of the disclosure threshold indexation, the bill introduces a transitional provision to freeze the financial disclosure threshold from the time the bill commences until the next general federal election. This will mean that the referendum entities and donors can have certainty that the disclosure threshold for this referendum will be $15,200.

Finally, Australia's electoral system is one of which we can be proud. This bill will modernise the legislation that will govern how this referendum will be conducted. The bill will advance the Prime Minister's commitment to hold a referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution through a voice to parliament. I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

Can I just confirm, Minister, that you said you were going to amend, rather than suspend, section 14(4). Did you in fact mean section 11(4)?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a good pick-up, Senator Hume! Yes, that was what I meant.

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

I rise to make some comments in relation to the Greens' position on the government amendments. As we said earlier this week, we will be supporting this bill. We support modernising the conduct of referenda and, in particular, we want the Voice referendum to succeed.

In relation to the government amendments which have been moved together: we're comfortable with the most recent amendment, which clarifies that the civics campaign will not be a de facto 'yes' or 'no' campaign but will be a neutral campaign. So we're happy to support QE100. But we note that there's a real need for truth in political advertising law and that, in fact, that should also have been addressed in this bill. There will be some amendments by our crossbench colleagues in relation to the drafting of the pamphlet, which we'll support, but the Greens' position remains that we want truth in political advertising laws, which we have advocated for for decades now and which we'll continue to pursue that through various other means.

We strongly support the extension of remote mobile polling from 12 to 19 days. Too many voters in the 2022 election, particularly those in remote areas, were effectively disenfranchised because the remote mobile-polling services didn't actually make it to their communities. Bad weather, large distances, mechanical issues and limited resources meant that some remote communities were only visited for a few hours by those remote-polling units and that some missed out altogether. We heard about poor communications, meaning that people didn't know when the polling station would be in town. It's clear that we need to do better, and I welcome this amendment to extend the remote-polling period from 12 to 19 days as an important step.

I note that in the recent JSCEM hearing, the AEC responded to some questions from me by confirming it was aiming to attend 100 remote areas during the referendum polling on the basis of the extension that the government has proposed. But I also want to note that it will be critical to make sure that referendum material is available in language and that interpreters are available at polling places for the duration of their time in the community. We need to facilitate people in remote areas participating actively in our democracy, and having the information they need to do that. This referendum is the perfect place to start that.

Amendment PX150 prevents the indexation of the disclosure threshold; that's uncontroversial, so we support that. But we note that we have an amendment, which I'll move shortly, to lower the disclosure threshold to $1,000. People have a right to know who is funding what, not just in elections but also in referenda. Whilst we support the decision not to allow indexation to occur, we think that $15,200 is too high a threshold. People actually want to know that information, and they deserve to know it. I note that Senator David Pocock has an amendment to one of the amendments the government has moved, the effect of which would be to extend the media blackout to include social media. I'm flagging that even though it hasn't been moved—although I imagine that's imminent—the Greens will support it. And I'll have quite a lot more to say when it comes to our amendments, because this is a crucial opportunity to enfranchise as many people as possible.

This is an important referendum; it has been a long time since we've had one, and these are weighty decisions. We should be maximising the participation of people in having their voice heard. It's somewhat ironic that the amendments the Greens will move to allow on-the-day enrolment will not, I believe, be supported by the government or the opposition. I say 'ironic', because we are having a referendum about having the Voice and yet they won't allow people to have a voice about having a voice by having this insurance policy of allowing on-the-day enrolment. I will speak about that when the time comes but I would urge others in the chamber to reconsider their opposition to that, because we can't wait. Voting is a right, it's not a privilege, and we should maximise participation by allowing on-the-day enrolment.

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

I have a question for the minister about Commonwealth expenditure. I would like an explanation about the constitutional expert group—the Referendum Engagement Group or the Referendum Working Group. I understand they are all 'yes' voters and 'yes' people. So if the government are paying for 'yes' people on their engagement group and their working group who are going around selling their song sheet and singing from their song sheet, then where is the accountability and transparency in paying those 'yes' people to say yes?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Thorpe for her question and I thank her for her engagement in this process with me and my office. The organisations just mentioned are groups that are currently working with the government. It's a reflection of what the government has been doing in consultation with those people who are interested in supporting the Voice to Parliament. It is an appropriate expenditure of federal government funds.

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

Excuse me for my ignorance and for not understanding this, but I thought there was no money for a 'yes' campaign and a 'no' campaign, so why are you paying people to say yes and, in fact, bully blackfellas out there to say yes as well? How much money are these people being paid to say yes to you and to allow the assimilation of black people into the Constitution?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Thorpe for her question. I absolutely reject the proposition that the purpose of these groups is to bully Indigenous voters one way or another. I don't think I can be clearer than this, Senator Thorpe. The government proposes to give Indigenous Australians a voice to parliament. We took that proposition to the last election. That was endorsed by the Australian people. We are in the process of working out all of the constitutional arrangements that would be required to implement that voice to parliament. It's appropriate that those individuals who are engaged in that process and who are providing the advice and support to the government be paid in those circumstances.

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

How do the black sovereign movement, who are a progressive no, participate in decision-making given you have only got the far-right blackfellas in the country saying yes and you have a growing black sovereign movement who are concerned about assimilating into the colonial Constitution? Is there an opportunity in terms of transparency and accountability to include the progressive no sovereign Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people in this country as part of your paid 'yes' people on the Referendum Engagement Group and the Referendum Working Group?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it's not the intention of the government to include those groups in this particular process, but any organisation in this country is free to express their point of view, either yes or no, in terms of the referendum. The great thing about Australia is that we are a democracy. People have the right to express yes or no. The whole point of the referendum is asking the Australian people what they think about this constitutional change. We heard earlier from particularly many of the coalition speakers on this topic just how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment in this country. The requirement is that you have four of the six states voting in favour at least and then a majority of Australians voting in favour. So it's a difficult hurdle to get over. The government supports the Voice. I'm very clear on that. And of course we have a couple of colleagues in the chamber have been very actively engaged in the process, Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy.

But regarding the people that you were referring to, they are free to participate in the process and, like everybody, will have an opportunity to express their point of view. I hope that they are not successful, because I believe that this referendum should succeed, but good luck to them in presenting their arguments.

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

or THORPE () (): In subsection 4, where you've included 'does not prevent the Commonwealth from extending money in relation to meetings of the Constitutional Expert Group, the Referendum Engagement Group, or the Referendum Working Group' these are all 'yes' people. They are all pretty well-paid CEOs in their own right who are now being paid by the government to say yes, and who don't have the consent of the people who they say that they represent. The Prime Minister was asked to meet with the black sovereign movement one month ago. We've had no response, and there has been no opportunity for black sovereigns in this country to have a conversation about their future. I don't understand the transparency and accountability if you're only paying 'yes' blackfellas and not allowing the progressive 'no' blackfellas even a seat at the table. I don't see the transparency and accountability—or fairness, to be precise. Can you explain that to the black sovereign movement watching today, who have been denied a seat at the table? They've asked the Prime Minister to have a conversation, and only 'yes' people are being paid at this point in time by your government, because it's your agenda.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for your question. I can't say much more, in honesty, than I said in answer to your previous question. These groups—and I don't accept your categorisation of them as simply being 'yes' people—are there to give government advice on the best way of achieving an Indigenous voice to parliament. That's the purpose. The objective is not to give the government advice on how not to do that, which is what I think you are asking to do.

You may not like the position that the federal government has taken on the Voice, but we are the government. We are entitled to present the position that we took to the Australian people at the last election in support of an Indigenous voice to parliament. And that is exactly what we're doing. It is appropriate that the people who are giving us that advice are treated in the way that this bill seeks to. That is their job. That's what they're doing. They're doing a very good job. Constitutional change is not easy in this country, Senator Thorpe. I, personally, support the Voice to Parliament. My home state of South Australia—I think this week, or in the next few days—is in fact doing this. South Australia, as it always has been, is a leader in social change in this country. That's what they're doing. Now it is time for Australia to catch up. We need catch up with the moves in South Australia.

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

Only a treaty will do that!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there are activities right around the country in terms of treaty. But we have chosen to go down this course. As I said, people are free to vote no if they wish. I don't want them to vote no; I want them to vote yes. This group has been working tirelessly to make sure that happens. That's the intention of the government. That's what we've announced that we're going to do, and we're going to continue to do it.

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

Thank you, Minister, for your lovely whitesplaining of how good this assimilation policy will be and how good the upcoming assimilation referendum for a powerless Voice will be. We're used to that. We've been putting up with that for over 200 years. I won't be supporting this particular amendment. I think it's just a secure way for the government to pay their 'yes' people to provide the 'yes sir; no sir' tokenistic gesture that, unfortunately, many, many advisory bodies—which government themselves hand-pick—do to us all the time. On behalf of the black sovereign movement, we won't be allowing 'yes' people to get paid any more than they already are to sell us out.

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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 1861:

(1) Amendment (1), item 3, after paragraph 3B(1)(e), add:

; or (f) a social media service (within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2021).

This is a very simple amendment that seeks to amend the government's amendments on sheet ZB195 to simply add social media to the blackout period. We have the advertising blackout period for a very good reason. I welcome the updates to the machinery of how referendums take place. It's 2023. There have been many changes since the republic referendum, including with regard to social media. I don't think social media featured in that campaign, so it makes sense to me to ensure that we're not seeing advertising on social media during that period.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for his engagement over this period, which we very much appreciate, but the government will not be supporting this particular amendment. While we do appreciate that the world has changed since that first broadcasting ban was introduced, and social media is a feature of modern-day communication, the objective of all of these changes to the referendum act is to try to ensure that Australian people have the same experience in this upcoming referendum as they would in a general election. Why is that necessary? The last referendum was more than 22 years ago. We've made a whole series of changes to the electoral act. We need to make sure that those experiences are now the same. Like it or not, there is currently no ban on social media in a federal election. There is a ban on other forms of media. All we're trying to do is link the normal processes that would apply in a federal election and make sure that they apply to a referendum.

I welcome discussion, in the JSCEM report, of the matters that you raise. There are a whole lot of changes that the government intends to make to the way in which we conduct federal elections in this country, but this is not the time to move this particular amendment. The time to deal with that issue will be when JSCEM is considering how we need to update our electoral laws. There will be plenty of time to deal with that in the weeks and months ahead, and I welcome your contribution to those processes.

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

Thank you, Minister, for the explanation. Minister, can you give the Senate a guarantee that once that JSCEM review is tabled, should a social media blackout be part of that, that that will be brought before parliament to ensure that the referendum isn't disadvantaged? I really don't believe that the referendum should have to put up with a potentially huge amount of advertising in the few days before Australians go to vote on this very important issue just because we haven't kept up with electoral reform. We're not reflecting in our laws what I think is an expectation from the community. Social media now is a very legitimate advertising channel; in fact, millions and millions of dollars are spent on social media advertising. It seems that, rather than getting ahead, it is common sense to bring this up to date.

I accept your reason that you don't want this to be ahead of JSCEM, but, should JSCEM before the referendum conclude that social media should be included, will the government seek to address this before the referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for what is a very sensible question. We will participate, like you will have the chance to, in the JSCEM processes. The issue is more complicated with social media. I will make this observation about social media—and there might be people in the parliament that disagree with my assessment of it. A person who looks at a particular social media site for their news is more likely to be a person who agrees with that particular social media point of view that's being projected. One of the problems with modern forms of communication, like social media, is that you're often only getting the news that you want to hear. In a sense, social media is different from, for instance, an advertisement in the middle of the nightly news.

Look at the way in which people form judgements and views. The most significant influence in a decision to change your mind about a particular issue is what you see on the evening television news, and that hasn't really changed very much over the years. You can go down the list of all the ways in which you can communicate. Of course, the one at the bottom, interestingly enough, is Twitter. Twitter is a source of information that makes virtually nobody changing their minds. No-one who is listening to your Twitter feed at the moment, if you've got one—I don't happen to have one—is going to change their mind about anything that they hear on Twitter.

I think there are different considerations, and I'm not pre-empting what JSCEM is going to do. I'm happy if they discuss this issue, because I think it's an important issue. My only point is that the whole purpose of this particular bill is to ensure that we have common treatment between referenda and general elections. That's what this bill does, and we appreciate the support for ensuring that blackout period; but, for any further changes, let's see what JSCEM comes up with. I am not going to pre-empt any decision that they might make.

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

Thank you, Minister, for the explanation. I am in no way suggesting that people's views be curtailed on social media, but there is a huge amount of advertising on Meta, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. I haven't seen the research that you cite, but it makes no sense to me to include all of these other advertising mediums and then not to include social media. I take your point on not wanting to be ahead and waiting for JSCEM, but, if JSCEM says social media should be included in the blackout period and that is before the referendum, will the government include that? I don't see why we should disadvantage the referendum and risk having advertising that really can't be scrutinised given that a lot of the ads on social media are dark ads. They're not visible to everyone. They're being served to people individually, and there is not a lot of transparency, but we know that political advertising on social media is well regulated, so it is fairly simple for the social media companies to simply not allow political ads in those last few days.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator David Pocock for his question. I don't think I can say anything more than I've already said. I'm not disagreeing that this is an important topic. It is a modern form of communication that we'll need to look at. The issue is complex. It's more complex because you're dealing with the internet and a range of other issues about how people can avoid having information delivered to them. The issue will be discussed by JSCEM. They will come up with a considered view on that. Let's have a look at what that view is.

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

I already flagged the Greens's support for Senator David Pocock's amendment in this respect, but I neglected to ask the minister one detailed question that pertains to the government amendment on sheet PX150. Some non-government organisations have asked for clarification. In relation to proposed section 109E, can you confirm that referendum entities are only required to disclose donations that they receive in the six months prior to the referendum? Will any disclosure be required for donations made earlier if the funds are spent during the referendum period? Thanks for clarifying that.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make sure that I give you the right answer. The amounts donated within six months before the writ and up to polling day need to be disclosed.

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

So just for clarity: if the donation is received prior to the six months and is spent during the six months, it is not subject to the disclosure requirements; is that correct?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is that it would be declared as an expenditure but not a receipt.

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

Now that there have been a number of amendments moved I thought I should put the opposition's position on each of them. I'll start with your amendment, Senator David Pocock. The opposition notes the views of Senator David Pocock on the blackout, but the opposition believes that the blackout period as imposed by the government amendment on sheet ZB195 should apply, as it does to other electoral events, such as federal elections. To expand the application of this would set a precedent that has not yet been fully investigated, as Minister Farrell explained. Any expansion of the blackout period should be subject to the proper processes, including consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, before the parliament can consider it effectively. So the opposition will be opposing this amendment.

I turn to the government's other amendments. The amendment on sheet PX149 is around the number of scrutineers. The opposition's position is to support that amendment because of the need to ensure that an appropriate number of scrutineers can be appointed to provide the additional assurance that referenda can be conducted with the appropriate level of integrity. We would note, however, that this does not address the issue of how scrutineers will be appointed by formal or informal 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and how to ensure each side has the adequate number of scrutineers or indeed how scrutineers behave and report back the information that they are seeing at voting places.

The opposition will be supporting the government's amendment around pausing the indexation event for the donation disclosure amount for the period of the referendum. It's a sensible step to ensure that participants who may be caught by donation activity prior to the referendum will have the same regulatory amount regardless of when they donate.

We'll be supporting too the government's amendment that creates an advertising blackout for the referendum, in line with the blackout that applies during Commonwealth elections. We've said that this referendum should be similar—as close as possible—to other electoral events so that participants have some familiarity with the way that it will be conducted. This is a good addition to the bill—to ensure that the blackout period which applies to federal elections also applies to the referendum.

Finally, the opposition will be supporting the government's amendment to allow for the extension of remote area mobile polling activities—RAMP activities, as the AEC refers to them—for the purposes of referendums, with the pre-poll locations, in addition to remote area mobile polling locations, operating earlier than the prescribed pre-poll period. We think this, too, is a sensible measure that will take into account the potential for adverse weather events, particularly during the wet season, which may delay the access of those RAMP teams to remote communities. We are very conscious that the RAMP teams service many remote and many Indigenous communities, and every effort should be made for those communities to be provided with the opportunity to cast their ballots in a referendum.

Those are the opposition's positions on both the government's amendments and Senator David Pocock's amendments. I do want to ask a question, though, of the minister regarding some questions that were asked by Senator Thorpe about the provision for limits on expenditure for meetings of the government's referendum groups: the Constitutional Expert Group, the Referendum Engagement Group and the Referendum Working Group. Can I just confirm that the expenditure is limited to meetings of those groups.

I also have a couple of questions around AEC resourcing. This is going to be a referendum which, unusually, is—I think the phrase that you've used, Minister Farrell, and also that the Prime Minister has used—going to be driven by civil society. Civil society is going to be able to run and manage their own campaigns, whether they be for 'yes' or whether they be for 'no'. From the opposition's perspective, this creates some risks. While it sounds like a terrific proposition, it is very different from the way we run federal elections, with registered political parties that are responsible for maintaining the integrity structure around those elections—for instance, around foreign donation laws, donation caps and foreign interference laws. All of that is run within the sphere of registered political parties.

When you turn a referendum over to civil society, you are going to be dealing with a whole new raft of organisations that have never, potentially, dealt with the political process before, and that opens up the system, the referendum and the electoral process to some risks. The opposition would like some assurances from the government as to how those risks will be managed. Is the government going to resource, for instance, the Australian Electoral Commission in order for them to provide education to referendum participants around things like the donations and disclosure regimes that are contained in this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hume for her question. I met with the commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission yesterday, and I'm very confident that they're full bottle on all of the issues that might arise in the course of the referendum. Of course, we've set aside a significant amount of funding to conduct the referendum, and I'd be confident, based on my discussions with the Australian Electoral Commission, that this referendum will be run in the same professional manner in which a general election would be run, and that all of the required rules around donations et cetera will be applied as they always are by the Australian Electoral Commission.

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

Is the AEC going to hold a register of participating organisations in the same way that it holds a register of political parties at an election?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The AEC will be doing everything it needs to do to ensure that this referendum is conducted in the professional way in which Australian elections are always conducted. I'm very proud of the AEC and the way in which they conduct elections. I think we have one of the finest electoral organisations in the world. They know what their job is, and I'm sure that's exactly what they're going to do. They're very focused on the referendum.

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

That wasn't an answer to the question. I am very concerned that, potentially, you haven't even spoken to the AEC about whether they will hold a list of organisations which are going to participate in this referendum, or whether those organisations have to register at all with the AEC. Is this something that you have spoken about to the AEC? And, if you have, what has been their response? I should put a caveat on that to say that in no way is the opposition casting aspersions on the professionalism of the AEC. We feel that the AEC does an exceptional job at federal elections. The problem is this: we are concerned that because of the way this referendum is going to be run, the AEC has one hand tied behind its back. So we want to understand what the government is doing to ensure that is not the case.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are in furious agreement about how well the AEC is going to conduct this referendum. Let's leave it to them. They know what their job is. They're professional people. If there is likely to be an issue, I'm sure I'll hear from the electoral commissioner himself, because in the past, when I've been the shadow SMOS, he's contacted me about this or that issue of concern. I'm sure that during the last federal election he made contact with the government about issues that he might have been concerned about. But I don't think we should have any fear whatsoever. This is going to be a professionally conducted referendum to the standard that we expect, and these changes we're bringing about today are going to assist in that process.

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

What I'm hearing you say is that there is no plan at this point in time for a register of participants in the upcoming referendum; that the AEC is not necessarily going to hold a list of all of the organisations participating; and that they're not going to hold a list of all of the organisations that could potentially breach the very laws that we are imposing upon those organisations today as part of this machinery bill. From the opposition's perspective, this is exactly the reason why we have requested official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns—to maintain the structural integrity around the referendum so that Australians know that those donation laws have been applied, that the organisations have complied, that foreign interference is limited and that foreign donations are banned. This is simply an impossible thing to manage and oversee unless there is either official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns or, at the very least, a register of organisations that the AEC and our intelligence agencies can go to to make sure that these organisations are complying with these very laws. I ask, then, of the minister: what is the quantum of funding that the government has provided to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake its duties as part of this referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get to the specific question, I'm happy if the opposition or, in fact, any member of parliament want to meet with the Australian Electoral Commission and discuss any concerns they might have about issues that might arise and how the AEC would answer those questions. I happen to know one of the reasons the AEC were in the building yesterday is that they were doing exactly that with one member of parliament who did have some concerns not in relation to this issue but on more general issues. I'm happy to facilitate any discussion that you might have. If you have concerns about how the AEC are going to conduct this referendum, I'm happy for the AEC to make themselves available to answer those questions and, in a sense, put your mind at rest that this is going to be a professionally conducted referendum.

In terms of some of the funding that we have set aside, in the 2022-23 October budget on the measure for delivery of the First Nations Voice to Parliament referendum preparatory work was announced to provide funding of $75.1 million over two years from 2022-23 for the AEC and other agencies to commence preparations and support work to deliver the referendum. This comprises $50.2 million in 2022-23 for the Australian Electoral Commission to commence preparations to deliver the referendum, $1.6 million over two years from 2022-23 for the Attorney-General's Department and $0.8 million for two years from 2022-23 for the Department of Finance. Then there is $160 million in the contingency reserve, a previous government decision, for further funding towards the referendum. The details will be announced in the 2023-24 budget. The final cost will be settled in the 2023-24 budget, as you would expect.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what advice has the government received about the risk of foreign interference in the upcoming referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not aware of any specific advice that we have received in relation to foreign interference in the referendum. But, as always, I'm sure the AEC will monitors these issues. We know legislation has previously passed this Senate that prohibits the involvement of foreign entities in Australian electoral processes. I'm sure the AEC is very alert to those issues and would be watching very closely.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister might like to check that answer because his own Attorney-General has publicly discussed the risk of foreign interference in the upcoming referendum. I am sure—and I would hope—that the Attorney-General wouldn't be publicly speculating about a foreign interference risk without receiving advice about it. Could the minister clarify?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure I need to check my answer. The Attorney-General might have received some advice on this issue, but your question to me was on what advice I have received from the AEC.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you'll have to check the Hansard. I'll read exactly the question I asked, which didn't mention you and didn't mention the AEC. I said, 'What advice has the government received about the risk of foreign interference in the referendum.' It wasn't limited to you; it was 'the government'. I'd appreciate your answer to that question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was referring to the advice I had received. I thought that was the context in which the question was being asked. But I'm happy to check with the Attorney-General to see what advice he's received.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are the minister responsible for this legislation and the successful delivery of this referendum, and you've received no advice on the risk of foreign interference that your own Attorney-General has publicly speculated about? If that is true, that is extraordinary and negligent. What questions have you asked and what information have you sought about this risk, which your own government is talking about publicly?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very confident, Senator Paterson, that the AEC are dealing with any issues that might relate to foreign interference in exactly the same way they deal with them at general elections—that is, very competently. If there were any issues that I needed to be made aware of, I'm sure the AEC would have done that. As I said, I was in conversation with the commissioner only yesterday afternoon. He certainly didn't raise with me any issues in relation to foreign interference.

The government continues, of course, to monitor these things in a variety of ways which I'm sure you're very familiar with. We don't want any foreign interference in this referendum. We want it to be about the Australian people and we want it to be the Australian people, and not foreign entities, who make the ultimate decision about whether or not we have a Voice to Parliament.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm conscious of the time and that we're soon going to hit a hard marker. Obviously, we'll be returning to this issue. Can I ask that the minister, in the intervening time away from the chamber, go and seek answers to these questions so that he can come back to the chamber and answer them adequately when we return to the committee stage later today. The government should be able to provide some information about the advice it has received, or sought, on the risk of foreign interference, given that the government has publicly speculated about it.

I'd also like to know whether you or any government minister has met with any of the tech platforms about the risk of foreign interference in the upcoming referendum.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll come back to you in respect of those answers when we resume debate on this bill.

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

I have two more questions. I heard both you and the opposition talk about how wonderful the AEC is and what high regard you hold the AEC in. The head of the AEC also supported provisional voting and said strongly that he supported provisional voting on the day. What is the problem with that? I understand there's some racism around why only Aboriginal people are being stopped from voting on the day. I've been hearing that the reason could be voter fraud—we don't want blackfellas being fraudulent towards the voting system. Why won't the government allow enrolment and voting on the day, as the head of the AEC has suggested and supported?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ator FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Thorpe for the question. I reject the notion that any decision we've made to either support or oppose an amendment to this legislation is based on racism. That's certainly not the case, and every decision we've made is based on our commitment to ensuring an Indigenous voice to parliament.

On the issue of voting on the day: I don't know how many times I can say this to you, Senator Thorpe, but the objective of this piece of legislation is to create the experience—

Progress reported.