David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Gallacher, for your contribution, but I think you spent about the first minute actually addressing the subject matter of the MPI—the failure of the Gillard government to commit to equal resources for a yes case and a no case for the proposed referendum question on the Constitution and local government—and the remainder of your time arguing for the yes case. I guess that is your prerogative, but that is quite a separate issue to the matter that we have raised here today. Senator Gallacher said—and this was about the extent to which he got into it—that the funding should reflect the vote in parliament. If he is correct, I think that would have very interesting results for all other areas of government funding, when you look at the proportionality of the votes that take place here. Senator Gallacher pointed to the $10.5 million that has been allocated by the government for the partisan campaigns. He said that all the rest would be equal—the yes/no booklet and all that would be funded equally. But the $10.5 million is the partisan part, and that is where the disproportionality exist.

The decision to disproportionately fund the yes and no campaigns and the extent to which it will be done is undoubtedly one of the most extraordinarily appalling decisions of this Labor government. Given the litany of broken policies and disastrous policies of this government, that is really saying something. In an almost inexplicable decision, this Labor government has decided to provide $10 million to the yes side yet just one-twentieth of that sum, $500,000, to the no campaign. This is despite the fact that, during the cross-party discussions, there was no mention whatsoever of a disproportionality in funding or, further, that it would be based on the parliamentary vote.

All Australians, whether they were born here or chose to live here, are incredibly lucky to have inherited an incredibly robust and balanced document in the form of our Constitution. We are one of only a handful of nations which remained democratic throughout the 20th century and into this one, one of the very few nations whose citizens have continuously enjoyed the liberties and freedoms that we now take for granted. We are incredibly lucky. But that luck has been greatly assisted by the fact that the document we now refer to as the Australian Constitution was thoughtfully and carefully drafted over 110 years ago and delivered exactly what we needed as a young nation to survive in our early years and mature into what is now one of the world's oldest democracies.

As such, Australians are rightly very cautious when it comes to changing this document fundamental to our democratic success. I acknowledge that, despite its great robustness, the Constitution does need to be changed from time to time to reflect circumstances our forebears could not or did not foresee, but it is right and correct, given the importance it plays in underpinning our democracy and the balance it achieves, that such change is approached carefully, cautiously and in a considered manner by Australians. Past practice shows it is usually also approached in the same manner by governments when putting up proposals for constitutional change. But, to the great shame of this government, that is not what we are seeing here. Ignoring for the moment the motivating factor behind Labor's decision to proceed with this referendum—that is, the deal done with the Greens and Independents after the last election to retain government—the process followed by Labor has shown a total disregard for a suitably careful, cautious and considered approach to this change. In the end, it is the people who should decide on change and, in doing so, it is right that they should fully understand the issues and the arguments for and against the proposed change.

I do not support the proposal, but I would not necessarily have been opposed in principle to the passing of the enabling bill if steps had been taken to ensure that the Australian people were as well prepared as possible to make a fully informed decision. This clearly will not be the case, both because of the failure of the government to act in a timely manner over the past 2½ years and, now, because of the government's attempt to make up for this failure by what looks awfully like trying to buy the outcome through grossly disproportionate funding of the two sides of the question—a partisan campaign, as Senator Gallacher referred to it.

As deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, I enjoyed the opportunity of hearing from constitutional experts, bureaucrats, local governments and other interested parties throughout the inquiry process, which ended earlier this year. What was patently obvious to me from that inquiry is that the government has seriously mishandled the process leading up to the announcement of this referendum. I would have thought it obvious that no proposal to change our Constitution should be put to the people unless all practical and reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the Australian people are as equipped as possible to make their decision on a fully informed basis.

Witnesses at the joint committee's hearings all supported that position. I suspect many who are opposed to the passage of the bill to enable the referendum would be far less stridently opposed if the process leading up to its consideration had been properly handled by the government. As it was not properly handled, I have far less confidence that the Australian people will have the necessary exposure to, or the necessary understanding of, the arguments for and against to allow them to make a fully informed decision on 14 September—or any earlier date which may transpire.

The government's failure to act on the recommendations of its own expert panel, particularly the recommendation for early engagement with the public on the issues, is only exacerbated by the decision announced this week to grossly disproportionately fund the yes case relative to the tiny amount made available for the no campaign. This can only be an attempt to skew public information and engagement towards an understanding of the issues from the yes perspective and away from the no. Such a move is entirely unprecedented, is dishonest and is unfair to all Australians.

The chamber is aware that the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, has written to the Prime Minister on this subject. I associate myself with the remarks he made in his letter. He said:

The Coalition believes that it is not up to the Government of the day to pre-determine the outcome of any referendum question: a referendum is a decision for the Australian people to make.

…   …   …

Any bid to change the Constitution should succeed on the strength of a fair and well-argued case, not on the weight of advertising. We should not lightly change our Constitution. Argument, not money, should determine the outcome.

…   …   …

It is the first time that any notion of public funding based on parliamentary votes has ever been raised with the Coalition, or publicly.

That is the dishonest aspect of what the government are doing. The letter goes on to say:

The fact that this grossly disparate funding split was never raised with the Coalition at any time during a process where bipartisanship was sought makes a mockery of so-called consultation.

You will recall that at the last referendum, the Government funded both the 'yes' and the 'no' case on the question of a Republic equally. Rightly, Mr Howard determined that the choice to support a change to the Constitution was a choice for the Australian people and government's role was to merely put up a sound question and ensure that the arguments could be put and a genuine community debate could be conducted.

He then calls on the Prime Minister to do the same and concludes:

Anything less than equal funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases puts at risk the fairness of this process.

It is bad enough that the government has entirely inappropriately decided to fund the yes and no campaigns disproportionately, but what does it say about the minister's—or indeed the government's—view of the Senate when he says that the decision made was to fund the campaigns in accordance with the vote on the floor of parliament? Here is some news for the minister: the Senate is part of the parliament. (Time expired)