Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's good to see Senator Farrell here as well, this week; it's good to see Senator Farrell back. It's always a pleasure to follow Senator Pocock, and I'll first acknowledge the heartfelt nature of his comments. He brings to this debate, and to all the discussions in this place, a heartfelt conviction: he's to do what's best for this country. I acknowledge that, Senator Pocock.

Queensland has voted yes in 21 referenda out of the 44 referenda, and, as far as I can work out from my research, there has not been a single referendum passed in Australia without Queensland's support. So Queensland is a key state in terms of all referenda that are considered in this country, including the forthcoming referendum. I think that context is very important to note. Australia has a history in referenda where, on many occasions, the most populous states have approved a referendum, so the majority of citizens in those states—namely, Victoria and New Wales—have voted in favour of a referendum, but less populous states have voted against the referendum. That should be recognised and noted by all senators engaging in this debate.

There are really three issues which the opposition has raised in relation to the referendum machinery, and, at the outset, I compliment the government for at least addressing the first one, and that is the need for a pamphlet to be disseminated to all Australian voters in relation to the referendum and for that pamphlet to have a 'yes' case and a 'no' case. I do take on board Senator Pocock's observation as to whether or not a pamphlet is required in this day and age, but the AEC, in the evidence it gave to the committee, noted that a lot of people do rely upon that sort of information coming from the AEC, so I think there is benefit in terms of having that pamphlet with the 'yes' and 'no' cases.

One other collateral point I want to speak to which Senator Pocock raised in that context was this issue of fact-checking. As a matter of principle, one could say: 'Well, what's the concern about fact-checking?' The issue is: when does a fact become a matter of opinion? Certainly, a majority of ex High Court judges have written opinion pieces in relation to the impact of the proposed wording on the Constitution and might consider that the risks are low, in relation to courts deciding matters flowing from that wording to the constitutional amendment; it could well be that a majority of ex High Court justices have that opinion. But there are also High Court justices—in particular, Ian Callinan from my home state of Queensland—who have a different point of view and believe there are risks associated with the introduction of those words. Now, should it be within the province of a so-called fact-checker to make a determination on the basis of whether or not those risks are live risks, or should it be for the Australian voters to make their own decision based on the credibility of people putting the differing arguments and deciding for themselves? That is my concern with respect to so-called fact-checking—that issues which are really matters of opinion and subjectivity fall within the province of so-called fact-checkers and that people are given just one predetermined view with respect to matters in which there are legitimate views on both sides of an argument. That is my fundamental concern as to the concept of fact-checking and how fact-checking can morph into opinion-vetting and go beyond the remit of just checking facts. That is a real concern that I have with respect to the notion of fact-checking. Let people check their own facts. Let people assess the credibility of those who are putting forward arguments. Let people access information in the marketplace of ideas and come to their own view. I think that's an important point to note.

Moving on from the issue of the pamphlet to the issue of formal campaigns, my second point is this. I think there is great merit in terms of the establishment of formal campaigns—a formal campaign for and a formal campaign against. In the context of so-called fact checking and the credibility of arguments which are put forward and the basis for those arguments, having formal campaigns will actually provide a credible source to which people can go to obtain reasoned arguments, whether in favour or against any particular policy. So I think there's great merit in having formal campaigns recognised.

Senator Pocock has spoken about finance, donations, in relation to this referendum campaign. Having formal campaigns established also assists in ensuring accountability with respect to the reporting of donations and getting across the maze of our electoral laws with respect to the reporting of donations. That is the second limb of why it's important to have formal campaigns recognised. The first is so that people have a credible source to which they can go to get the information they're searching for to answer their questions when they're determining how they're going to cast their vote in the referendum. The second is that it also provides for accountability with respect to the deployment of donations and to ensure that our Australian electoral laws are complied with.

The third point I want to make is with respect to funding. Bear in mind that we're considering and debating a piece of legislation that deals with referendum machinery. It isn't just a question, from my perspective, with respect to the forthcoming Voice referendum. It's a question as to what principles should apply when the Australian people are considering change to their Constitution. As a first principle, I think disseminating to every Australian elector a pamphlet which has a 'no' and a 'yes' case is an important part of the process. Formal 'yes' campaigns and 'no' campaigns, providing for accountability, credibility and responsibility—I think that's an important limb. But the third one is equality of funding. In this respect, again, as a general principle there should be a minimum amount of equal funding provided to the 'yes' case and the 'no' case—a minimum level of funding to ensure that the arguments for and against have the ability to cut through to the Australian people and the Australian people know where they can get the information which they're seeking in order to make their decision with respect to the Voice referendum or any other referendum.

I want to go back in time—and Senator Farrell may remember this. I'm not going that far back in time; I'm sure there are many things Senator Farrell would remember, but we're not going too far back. I do want to go back to the proposed referendum on the recognition of local government. Senator Farrell, do you go back that far?