Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Hansard source

The Constitution is the guiding document of the nation, and referenda to alter that document are among the most important discussions that we can have. It is the document that has seen Australia develop as the stable and functional society that we enjoy, and it is therefore critical that the government of the day provides comprehensive information to support both the 'yes' and 'no' cases to allow all Australians to make an informed decision.

More than a quarter of all Australians were born overseas and almost half have a parent who was born overseas, so the production of this material in other languages is paramount to allow those for whom English is not their first language to make the same informed decision as others. If Labor is serious about a multicultural society, this should be a priority. In fact, today is Harmony Day, and we heard earlier from the minister about how important a multicultural society is to this government, yet the very demonstration of how that should happen has been called into question by their decision not to provide a multilingual pamphlet with the 'yes' and 'no' cases outlined. A neutral civic program—the pamphlet—allows Australians to consider their decision in an informed and deliberate manner away from the din of public debate, and I think this is critical because this is a serious decision. Despite the commentary from the Prime Minister about Australians being generous and how Australians should do this, it's not fair to expect Australians to make a decision of such import, to change our Constitution, without doing the work that is required. I've been reflecting on Senator Ruston's comments that the failure of this referendum will be sheeted home to how well this government has provided the clarity and transparency to make a decision. That is why this is so important.

The coalition raised three major concerns with the draft bill. We wanted to restore the pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases, we wanted to establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and we thought it was appropriate that there be appropriate funding for these official organisations. I acknowledge the government's announcement that there will be both cases published on the pamphlet, but, of course, we have not yet seen that amendment to understand exactly what they intend to do. But it is fundamental to our society—to good, balanced decision-making for Australians—that we have informed voters, we have good process and we have consistent process aligned with the precedent of previous referenda. This pamphlet is vital to the consistency of referenda. As I said, we welcome the government's signals, but we do need to wait for the final amendment words.

I'm also concerned about there being no plan to regulate donations to provide security and to promote a fair platform. Foreign intervention into critical decisions of national importance is a subject which is the matter of much discussion around the world, so it is important that this government also regulate donations and provide transparency about who is influencing the decisions that Australians make. If we were to have no pamphlet, it would be the first time since 1928. That is a dangerous precedent. A pamphlet has been required since 1912. We have had three referenda where there hasn't been a pamphlet—1919, 1926 and 1928—for three very good reasons. In 1919 there was insufficient time to produce a pamphlet—

Debate interrupted.