Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022
I rise today to speak against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill proposes to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, and, in doing so, threatens to undermine the way we do referendums and, by extension, to undermine the Australian Constitution—the bedrock of the institution I stand in today. The referendum act sets out clear regulations on how donations to referendum campaigns are made, ensuring that the process is transparent and fair. However, Labor's proposed amendments to the act, contained in this bill, threaten to undermine these regulations, potentially allowing for foreign interference in our electoral processes. It is a crying shame. It is our duty to ensure that these processes remain free from outside influence and that the voices of all Australians are heard equally.
While the bill does make some noncontroversial changes to the act to bring it in line with Commonwealth Electoral Act, there are still three key issues that remain. Firstly, the removal of the requirement to provide all households with a pamphlet outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases for changing the Constitution is a significant concern. While the government has announced its intention to restore the pamphlet, we will reserve our position until a final amendment is presented. The provision of an official 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet has been a longstanding feature of referenda in Australia, with the first requirement for a pamphlet being implemented in 1912. This is the first time there has been no official pamphlet provided to voters since before Phar Lap won the Melbourne Cup. I'm reminded of a great quote from the late Roger Scruton, that 'good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created.' I remind those opposite that perhaps there is a reason that we have had official pamphlets for more than 100 years. Perhaps it is because it's a good idea. The foundations of democracy are held strong by having a well-informed public, and by attempting to create a much-less-informed and possibly misinformed public debate is simply a low and deceiving act by those opposite, who claimed an election platform of transparency, little of which we have seen since they were elected.
When I first read the Attorney-General's Department media release on this matter, I couldn't help but laugh. They say:
The next referendum will be the first in the digital age. There is no longer any need for taxpayers to pay for a pamphlet to be sent to every household.
The gall of a government that spends money like nobody's business, with one of the biggest taxing-and-spending agendas in our nation's history, to all of a sudden implement a policy of austerity on our democracy, of all things—it is laughable.
There have been three referenda without an official pamphlet: 1919, 1926 and 1928. None of the circumstances that applied in those cases apply to the current situation. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet. In 1926 there was no agreement on how to produce the 'yes' argument. In 1928 there was overwhelming agreement between parties and government. In contrast, there is not complete agreement on the issue of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament, but there is time to produce a pamphlet and it is possible to get agreement on how to argue the cases. Furthermore, research has shown that people use official material when deciding how to vote. The Australian Electoral Commission has reported that, when people are provided mailed material in elections, 40 per cent of recipients will use this documentation as their main source of information when casting their vote. This suggests that an official pamphlet would be a very valuable resource for voters, particularly given the increasing influence of misinformation in electoral events.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has reported that 92 per cent of respondents to their news surveys had some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming, and that analysis has identified widespread, entrenched and systemic concerning consumer and competition harms across a range of digital platform services. An official pamphlet would provide voters with a reliable and trustworthy source of information about the proposed changes to the Constitution and would help to counteract the influence of misinformation.
As I was saying earlier before I was interrupted, just as concerning is that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 also intends not to fund the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. I'm sure that, if the Labor Party could get away with it, the government would do nothing but fund their party operation and their party apparatchiks—for they follow that great line from Dale Carnegie: 'The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.' Advocating for official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns is a crucial step towards increasing trust and integrity in the referendum process. The implementation of official campaigns will simplify the regulatory environment and ensure the proper conduct of the referendum.
The Australian Electoral Commission has provided evidence to parliamentary committees that the donation and disclosure regime remains the most complex part of the Electoral Act. Applying this regime in the referendum will require proper education and enforcement of the electoral laws for participants who are not regularly involved in elections. Having an official campaign structure is the best way for regulators to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of the electoral laws. An official campaign will provide a single point of coordination to provide education and to commence any audit processes for the donations or foreign interference, thereby ensuring the integrity of the referendum. This is especially important because in this referendum there will be a significant number of participants and organisations who will not be associated with political parties or who do not regularly participate in electoral events.
Moreover, the AEC has expressed concerns that some individuals might fall under donations legislation and other electoral laws without even knowing it. The education of participants will be significant, given that these events happen so rarely and they aren't the usual political parties that they will be regulating. Even political parties struggle to get it right every time. Therefore, the implementation of an official campaign will provide a framework for education and support, ensuring that all participants have a clear understanding of their obligations and responsibilities.
Official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will also enhance transparency and accountability of the referendum process. They will ensure that all participants have equal access to funding and resources, thereby levelling the playing field for both sides of the debate. This will ensure that, whatever the result of the referendum, all Australians respect it and accept it. We don't want the Australian people to feel like their side won or lost because of dodgy donations and misinformation. We want our referendum system to be like all of our other election systems: the gold standard that the rest of the world follows.
It is also a concern that the threat that a foreign power may influence this referendum and, by extension, our country is worsened by this piece of legislation. The director-general of ASIO only two weeks ago told Australians that we are seeing the greatest level of foreign interference in Australia's history. In light of this, it is crucial to consider practical steps that can provide structure around the referendum process and help regulators and agencies manage the situation effectively.
The issue of foreign interference is not unique to Australia, as evidenced by similar incidents in other countries, for example, Canadian intelligence agencies uncovered plots to interfere in their 2021 election to create a minority government, and state-sponsored hacking has reportedly targeted three major parties in Australia. As such, the need for a structured approach to the referendum becomes all the more important to mitigating the risk of foreign interference. The establishment of official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, along with the formal structure to regulate the process, can help provide a single point of coordination to ensure appropriate education and enforcement of electoral laws and help mitigate the risk of foreign interference.
The arrogance of the Australian Labor Party is on full display here today. They show that they have no respect for democracy and no respect for the Australian people and their decision. They think, if a 'yes' vote for the referendum is such a forgone conclusion, why would they ever need to give any respect to the other side of the argument? Just like in 2019, when they were so sure of a win they were practically measuring the curtains, Labor's arrogance and pride will be their downfall.
I was reminded of one of Paul Keating's quotes on Fightback!, before he entirely lost the plot. He said of John Hewson's policy:
If you don't understand it, don't vote for it; if you do understand it, you'd never vote for it!
So I say to those opposite: if you don't give the Australian people the chance to understand the Voice and the referendum that they are voting on then you are sorely mistaken if you think they are going to vote for it.
