Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Hansard source

In reference to the amendment we have just dealt with, I have been informed that Senator Wong referred to that amount of money as the LGA grant a few minutes ago on television. I am not sure if that provides any extra clarity for the government to be able to give answers. I am led to believe, although I was not a witness to it, that Senator Wong also conceded on air that equal funding should be given to proponents and opponents. I am not a witness to that and I am happy to be corrected, but that is the message I have received, which I thought might inform the house of, given the debate we just had. I now move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 7384:

(2) Schedule 1, items 1 to 3, page 3 (lines 4 to 21), items TO BE OPPOSED.

This amendment concerns the distribution of what is simply known as the yes/no booklet. This booklet has a history in this country and this booklet is a century old. It was conceived in 1912 to inform electors of the arguments for the yes and the no cases in amending our constitution. I cannot understand why on earth the people on the other side of this chamber and their Green allies are so desperate to stop the booklet going to each elector. I have never heard such a contrived excuse as saving money from this government when it just voted to spend $10 million on an advertising campaign. I notice that Senator Rhiannon said that the combination of these two measures improved the budget. Only the Greens could say that saving four and spending 10 improves the budget.

This booklet is prepared by a majority of the people who voted yes in the parliament and by a majority of those who voted no in the parliament. It gets mailed to every elector, and I think it is fair to say that we all, maybe, open mail that looks more official rather than something that might come in a plastic envelope and says, 'To the householder'. The government stood up here and preached about the need for information to voters and how an advertising campaign was so important to this referendum, yet it is doing everything it can to stop a very simple booklet going to voters.

The Attorney-General in the other place yesterday seemed to imply that these changes were necessary to enable use of the internet. He said to the opposition spokesperson, Mrs Bishop:

By that, I mean the use of the internet—which perhaps the member for Mackellar has now discovered …

In the typical dismissive and sarcastic way that only the member for Isaacs can manage he implied that, somehow, the internet is not able to be used. We had it confirmed this afternoon that in 1999 information was put up by the AEC on their website. There is nothing that stops the AEC putting information on its website.

What this provision does is merely ensure that each voter gets a booklet, that each voter gets the information determined by those people in this place who have the constitutional responsibility and prerogative to put a proposal before them to amend their constitution. Yet, for the most contrived reasons, the government are determined to not let them have that. You are so determined to only let them see what you want them to see that you are basically going to throw it in with the Coles catalogue. This is treating the voters with contempt and I would say, even more importantly, that it is treating the proponents of this argument with contempt. It is treating those who have worked for this for many years with contempt. It is treating the people you claim to care about so much and who care so deeply about this issue with contempt.

No justification has been provided to take this booklet from a direct mail from the AEC. If there is one I am happy to hear it. The opposition and coalition members have never supported this. We have always opposed it and for good reason because this is the one thing that the public gets from proponents and opponents that is unfiltered. We, after all, have a unique constitutional responsibility. No-one can put a proposal to change the constitution before the people other than members of at least one of these houses. Unlike the US, unlike many other places in the world, which people might consider democratic, where states might be able to convene a constitutional convention or decisions to amend the constitution are made by politicians alone, we have a unique and well-designed provision in section 128. Both houses by absolute majority or one house with an absolute majority on two occasions separated by a couple of months have the right to put something before the people. What you are saying is that the one thing they get from the proponents and opponents, unadulterated but approved by the AEC and the Commissioner, you basically do not want them to get.

Senator Rhiannon, you may actually get up and make allegations about the opposition's motivations again, but I challenge you to say how this booklet and getting this booklet is in any way a challenge to the viability of this referendum, unless of course the proponents of it are scared of people seeing both sides of the argument.