Bills Digest No. 45, 2022–23

PDF version [459KB]

Dr Damon Muller
Politics and Public Administration Section
22 December 2022

Key points The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 (the Bill) would suspend the provisions in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the Referendum Act) that require the production and distribution of a Yes and No case against a proposed constitutional change and impose restrictions on the Government otherwise spending money on a referendum campaign. The Bill would regulate donations and expenditure for referendum campaigns and impose reporting obligations. It would also ban foreign donations of $100 or more from being used for referendum campaigns and ban foreign campaigners authorising referendum material. The Bill would update the Referendum Act to generally bring it into line with updates to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that have been legislated in recent years.

Contents

The Bills Digest at a glance
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Other provisions
Concluding comments

 

Date introduced:  1 December 2022
House:  House of Representatives
Portfolio:  Finance
Commencement: The day of Royal Assent.

Links: The links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the Bill’s home page, or through the Australian Parliament website.

When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation website.

All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at December 2022.

The Bills Digest at a glance

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 (the Bill) aims to modernise the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the Referendum Act) in the expectation of a constitutional referendum on an  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, which is expected to be conducted in the 2023 calendar year.

The Bill would implement three major changes to the practice of constitutional referendums in Australia, in addition to a number of minor changes. The minor changes largely bring the rules and procedures in the Referendum Act on the conduct of referendums into line with changes that have been made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) over recent years. These minor changes are likely to be relatively uncontroversial, having been in effect for one or more federal elections (an example is aligning the early voting period for a referendum with the 12 day early voting period for federal elections legislated in 2021).

The first of the major changes, and the topic of the most commentary so far, is that the Bill would suspend the operation of the provisions of the Referendum Act that require the preparation and distribution of a pamphlet with Yes and No cases to the referendum question, and otherwise restrict the Government from spending money on referendum campaigns. The Government has stated that it will not fund the campaigns for or against the change, but that it will run a public education campaign in relation to the referendum. Constitutional experts tend to view the requirements for the Yes and No cases to be something of a failed experiment, however the Opposition has indicated its objection to the removal of these provisions. The fact that the Government has not detailed its plans for the campaign and would have no legislative restrictions on its spending (other than appropriation) is likely to be the source of some debate.

The second of the major changes is to the authorisation provisions for referendum material. Most of the substance of this part of the Bill proposes to bring these provisions in line with the equivalent provisions in the Electoral Act. A significant effect of these changes, however, will be to effectively ban foreign campaigners from campaigning for or against the referendum. Contravention of this restriction can lead to a maximum civil penalty of 120 penalty units.

The third major change is the implementation of a scheme to regulate and report donations and expenditure in relation to referendum campaigns. While the Referendum Act closely mirrors the Electoral Act, the Referendum Act does not currently contain political finance provisions. The Bill proposes to implement a system very similar to the donation and disclosure regime for federal elections, including the restriction on donations by foreign donors and spending by foreign campaigners. The provisions would require donors who have donated an amount above the disclosure threshold, and referendum campaigners who receive donations and incur referendum expenditure, to provide a report to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on donations and expenditure within 15 weeks after the referendum date, to be published by the AEC 24 weeks after the referendum.

The provision that seeks to suspend the Yes and No case distribution and restrictions on Government spending has already proved to be somewhat divisive, however, the remainder of the provisions of the Bill are quite conservative, and generally only replicate (or adapt) processes and schemes which are already well tested and understood in the context of federal elections and the Electoral Act.

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the Referendum Act) to suspend the provisions of the Act that require the production and distribution of a Yes and No case and otherwise restrict government expenditure in relation to referendum campaigning; to impose a donation and campaign expenditure reporting regime on referendum campaigning, including banning foreign donations of $100 or more; to restrict foreign campaigning in relation to a referendum; and to otherwise bring the Referendum Act into line with recent changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act). The Bill also provides for certain consequential amendments to the Electoral Act.

Structure of the Bill

The Bill contains eight Schedules. The Schedules are arranged thematically, with each Schedule containing a set of amendments to either the Referendum Act or the Electoral Act that relate to a specific aspect of the operation of referendums. Schedules 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 primarily bring across changes relating to the process of carrying out an electoral event which have been made in recent years to the Electoral Act but not to the Referendum Act. Schedule 3 expands the authorisation provisions for referendum material and Schedule 4 implements a referendum financial disclosure scheme, both of which largely reflect the approaches taken in the Electoral Act. Schedules 7 and 8 contain a number of language and legislative drafting modernisations to the Referendum Act.

Background

Over the last decade there have been several proposals for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. At the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in May 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart called for ‘… constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country’. In the lead up to the 2022 federal election, the Australian Labor Party committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. In July 2022, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese attended and spoke at the Garma Festival where he reaffirmed the election commitment and floated wording for a referendum question on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament.

On the first day of the 47th Parliament, the Prime Minister said he will be ‘embracing the Statement from the Heart at Uluru’. In his speech on the Closing the Gap annual report 2022 on 30 November 2022 the Prime Minister said ‘I re‑dedicate our government to the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in full, including a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament’ and gave an indication of the timeline, ‘[t]here is an opportunity in the second half of next year to do better’. This timeline is consistent with a statement the Prime Minister made in September 2022 that the referendum will be held between July 2023 and June 2024.

In recent decades Australian governments have been relatively reluctant to submit a proposal to alter the Constitution to the Australian people, possibly because the Australian people have been particularly reluctant to approve such changes. Since Federation 44 questions for altering the Constitution have been put to the people, and only 8 have been approved.[1] The last constitutional referendum was in 1999 and included questions on a republic and a preamble to the Constitution, both of which failed to be carried by a majority of voters or voters in a majority of states, with majorities of both required to alter the Constitution. The most recent successful referendum was in 1977.[2]

This lack of success at constitutional referendums has resulted in a body of commentary about constitutional alteration and referendums in Australia, which will not be examined in any detail here. It has also led to parliamentary inquiries that have made specific recommendations about the conduct of referendums.

The most recent such inquiry resulted in the December 2021 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Inquiry into Constitutional Reform and Referendums.[3] A focus of the Committee’s report that is relevant for this Bills Digest was on the distribution of material outlining the Yes and No cases and the rules on expenditure for a referendum campaign.

In relation to expenditure on referendum campaigns, the Committee stated:

[S]ection 11(4) of the Referendum Act limits the Government from spending money ‘in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law’ to amend the Constitution, except in relation to certain activities. These include the preparation and distribution of the yes/no pamphlet and the provision by the [Australian Electoral Commission] AEC of other information about the proposed amendment and its effect.

Following the 1988 decision of the High Court in Reith v Morling, the limitation contained in section 11(4) is understood to be quite broad. The operation of section 11(4) was subsequently suspended for the 1999 referendum to allow for public education and the funding of the yes and no campaigns, and again for the proposed 2013 referendum on the recognition of local government, which ultimately did not proceed.[4]

The Committee noted that there were no requirements in relation to private spending or donations and campaign transparency for referendums. It cited the Electoral Commissioner’s statement that he could not understand the reason for the discrepancy between the transparency requirements for referendums and elections.[5]

In relation to the Referendum Act, the Committee concluded:

From evidence to the inquiry, it is clear to the Committee that certain provisions in the Referendum Act are outdated and not suitable for a referendum in contemporary Australia. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 2009, indicating that these are longstanding issues which have gone unresolved by successive governments.[6]

The Committee recommended that section 11 of the Referendum Act be amended to allow the Electoral Commissioner to distribute the Yes and No cases through other means in addition to the existing provision of a paper pamphlet distributed through the mail (Recommendation 6), that subsection 11(4) be amended to allow the Government to fund referendum education campaigns and campaigns promoting the Yes and No cases (Recommendation 7), and that a political finance scheme consistent with Part XX of the Electoral Act be implemented for referendums (Recommendation 8).[7] Additionally, the Committee recommended:

that the Australian Government ensure that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 and the referendum process more generally is modernised well in advance of any referendum on the question of constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, which is expected to occur in the next term of Parliament, or any other future referendum.[8]

Notably, the Committee did not recommend changing the requirements around the Yes and No cases, instead taking the position that that the Yes and No pamphlet held a central role in the referendum process and that it should be sent to all electors, not just each household, although not necessarily exclusively through the postal system.[9] Labor members of the majority Coalition Committee made some additional comments to the report but did not dissent from the Committee’s general support for a Yes and No case to be made, and for it to be distributed by more modern means.[10]

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into the machinery of referendums reported in December 2009. The Committee was chaired by Mark Dreyfus, the current Attorney-General. The report heavily focused on the ‘Yes/No pamphlet’, noting that this approach was first introduced in 1912 following the defeat of two referendum proposals in 1911, and had been largely unchanged in the subsequent century.[11] The Committee generally concluded that the Yes/No pamphlet was a valuable document but not sufficient education for all electors and argued for additional flexibility in communication and the removal of the restriction on Government communication spending.[12]

The Committee report noted that there have only been three referendums (1919, 1926 and 1928) where Yes/No pamphlets were not distributed. In each case this was due to legislative requirements. For 1919 the referendum was held on the same day as a general election and legislation had been passed which stated that the requirement to distribute a Yes/No pamphlet would not apply if a referendum was held with the 1919 election. In 1926 and 1928 legislation was passed to suspend the provisions of the then relevant Referendum Acts that required the distribution of the Yes/No cases for those referendums.[13]

In relation to Government expenditure for a referendum, the Committee noted that the reason for the prohibition on Government spending in the Referendum Act was due to a 1983 proposal that the Government spend $5 million for the Yes/No pamphlet for a referendum and an additional $1.25 million to promote the Yes case alone.[14]

The report also noted that a decision of the High Court in Reith v Morling suggested that the prohibition on Government expenditure under subsection 11(4) is quite broad.[15] Specifically, the Attorney-General’s Department had legal advice that many types of educational material could come within the scope of the prohibition, particularly if the educational material included any argument for or against the proposed law.[16]

The Committee was generally in favour of retaining the Yes/No arguments, but recommended removing the 2,000-word limit on the arguments:

The Yes/No arguments are an important means for parliamentarians to explain to electors why they support or do not support the proposal for constitutional change. The oppositional nature of the Yes/No arguments also helps stimulate public debate and discussion. Further, they are appropriately directed to a (sic) providing a yes/no answer—which is what will be required of the elector on the day of referendum.

The Committee considers that there may be insufficient or inadequate information for many electors where Yes/No pamphlets are the only official material available to electors. However, in conjunction with other contextual material and education campaigns, the preparation of clear and concise Yes/No arguments are an important element of the referendum process and should be retained.[17]

The Committee further stated that it believed that Parliamentarians should continue to be responsible for authorising the cases. It noted that it believed that a Yes/No case should always be prepared, and that if a constitutional alteration Bill was passed unanimously all members of Parliament should be responsible for authorising both a Yes and No case:

The Committee notes that members of Parliament are elected representatives and are responsible and accountable to the Australian people. It is arguably the Parliament’s responsibility to put the case to voters because it is the Parliament which is responsible for the amendment proposal. The Committee considers it important and appropriate that members of Parliament retain responsibility for authorising the official Yes/No arguments and supports the retention of this requirement.[18]

The Committee recommended that the restriction on Government spending be repealed (Recommendation 11) and presented the view that the total amount of spending should be a decision for the Government of the day:

The Committee recommends the Australian Government introduce amendments to remove the current limitation on spending imposed by section 11(4) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (Cth) and to include provisions to ensure that spending is directed to referendum education and to equal promotion of the Yes/No arguments.[19]

Finally, the Committee recommended that the Electoral Act and the Referendum Act be combined, with the referendum provisions incorporated into the Electoral Act.[20]

In summary, the two most recent parliamentary reports into the Referendum Act have recommended that the restrictions on government funding should be repealed, leaving the decisions to the government of the day, and that the distribution of Yes/No cases should be retained, although with additional means of distributing them. Essentially none of the recommendations of the various committees over the years in relation to reforming the Referendum Act or the process of referendums have been implemented by subsequent Governments.

Committee consideration

Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters

The Bill has been referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) for inquiry and report by 10 February 2023. Details of the inquiry are at the inquiry home page.

Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

At the time of publication the Bill had not been considered by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

The Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Special Minister of State released a statement on 1 December 2022 opposing the proposed removal of the requirement for a Yes and No case. The statement noted that:

Labor’s removal of these protections for public debate puts at risk a successful referendum and the ability for Australians to consider the arguments in full.[21]

The Shadow Ministers stated that not publishing an official case risked fuelling misinformation. While the statement did not nominate any other specific issues with the Bill, it noted that the Coalition welcomed the referral of the Bill to the JSCEM.

The Greens and other non-Government members of the Parliament have not commented publicly on the Bill at the time of publication of this Digest.

Position of major interest groups

The last Australian constitutional referendum was held 23 years ago, on 6 November 1999, so it is likely that most Australians have little understanding of the nuances of the Referendum Act, and as such not surprising that the Bill has received little attention so far (this Bills Digest will not consider positions in relation to the referendum itself, only the Bill).

Three prominent legal academics with an interest in constitutional law have published their views on the Bill. The suspension of the provisions to provide a Yes and No case have been cautiously welcomed by the experts. Professor Anne Twomey stated that the ‘the Yes/No case has long been recognised as a failed experiment’.[22] Professor George Williams noted that the Yes/No pamphlet:

failed repeatedly to live up to its promise and has not met the aspirations of parliament by enabling Australians to cast an informed vote. The best that can be said of the pamphlet is that the 2000-word statements are so unappealing that few people ever read them.[23]

Dr Paul Kildea stated that ‘the pamphlet has never lived up to its promise as an educative tool’, but that ‘rather than ditching the pamphlet, the parliament should reform it.’[24] All three recognise that the Yes/No case pamphlets are not an effective way of making a case to the voters, but that educating voters in some way is still important.

In relation to funding the campaigns, Dr Kildea noted that the funding of the campaigns using public money in 1999 was a one-off, and that not publicly funding referendum campaigns was the norm in Australian history. Both Professors Williams and Twomey note that, while the Government has said it will fund an education campaign, it will need to be very careful to ensure that it is not seen as partisan.

Dr Kildea was the only one of the three who provided substantial views on the financial disclosure provisions of the Bill. He noted that the regulation of referendum donations and spending is well overdue, but that in replicating the political finance provisions of the Electoral Act the Bill also adopts some of the problems with the electoral finance regime, such as a high disclosure threshold and not requiring real-time disclosure.

While the legislation has generally otherwise not gained significant media coverage, a small number of articles have drawn a link between the decision not to fund the campaigns and the Government proposing to make Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition a deductible gift recipient (DGR), allowing for donations to be tax deductible, but not an equivalent opposition group.[25]

Financial implications

The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Bill will have no financial impact.[26] The financial disclosure obligations imposed by the Bill will, however, have a financial impact on the AEC as the AEC will be required to process and report on some amount of additional out-of-cycle financial disclosures. Financial disclosure returns are required to be provided to the AEC by referendum entities (a person or entity that incurs referendum expenditure above the disclosure threshold between six months before the issue of the writ and the day of the referendum) and donors 15 weeks after voting day (proposed paragraph 109E(4)(a) and proposed subsection 109G(2) of the Referendum Act respectively, at Item 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill), and must be published before the end of 24 weeks after the referendum by the AEC (Schedule 4, Item 7).

The AEC and other agencies in the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce would also be expected to incur some additional spending in relation to the provisions that aim to protect the referendum from foreign interference. As neither the AEC nor any of its partner agencies have ever commenced enforcement actions in relation to the existing foreign interference provisions of the Electoral Act it may be difficult to anticipate what actions in this regard might cost.

Depending on the timing of the next referendum, most of the additional cost to the AEC will come in a future Budget cycle. It is also possible that this extra work is already accommodated for in the additional appropriations for the AEC and other agencies in the October 2022–23 federal budget of $52.6 million over two years to ‘commence preparations and support work to deliver the Referendum’.[27]

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[28]

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

At the time of publication, the Bill had not been considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Key issues and provisions

Most of the provisions in the Bill are concerned with bringing the Referendum Act up to parity with the Electoral Act or otherwise modernising the language of the Referendum Act. Generally, they are not particularly worthy of discussion beyond what is provided by the Explanatory Memorandum, however, they are outlined briefly in the Other Provisions section of this Bills Digest.

Three groups of provisions do, however, propose significant changes to the operation of referendums in Australia, and will be discussed in this section. The first is the suspension of the provisions of the Referendum Act that require the preparation and distribution of a Yes and No case to the proposed constitutional change, as provided for in Clause 4, and the others are the provisions for referendum financial disclosure in Schedule 4 and authorisations of referendum material in Schedule 3.

Suspending the operation of the Yes and No case provisions

Clause 4 of the Bill would suspend section 11 of the Referendum Act between the day the Bill receives Royal Assent and the polling day of the next general election of members of the House of Representatives.

Section 11 of the Act relates to the distribution of the arguments for and against the proposed law to electors (that is, the amendment to the Constitution). Generally, it:

• requires the Electoral Commissioner to distribute an argument in favour of the proposed law of not more than 2,000 words and an argument against the proposed law of not more than 2,000 words, authorised by a majority of the members of Parliament who voted each way, to each household where there is an enrolled elector (subsections 11(1) through (3)) and
• prohibits the Commonwealth from expending any money in respect of the presentation of an argument for or against the proposed law other than on the preparation and distribution of the pamphlet with the for and against cases (subsection 11(4)).

At the time of the previous constitutional referendum in 1999 the then Government legislated the Referendum Legislation Amendment Act 1999 (the 1999 Act), which made some minor changes to the Referendum Act, and also suspended the operation of subsection 11(4). Specifically, the 1999 Act permitted Government expenditure in relation to the 1999 referendum questions.

In the second reading speech to the 1999 Act the Attorney-General stated:

The Constitutional Convention met in February 1998 to consider whether Australia should become a republic, which republic model should be put to voters to consider against the present system of government, and in what time frame any change might take place. … The convention also recommended that, prior to the referendum being put to the people, the government undertake a public education program directed to the constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum on the republic.

The government has confirmed that it will put the convention's preferred model to a referendum in 1999 and that it will support public information activities in relation to the referendum. The government has made it clear that the republic question is one for the Australian people to decide. In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government and the proposal for change. The government believes that public funding should be made available to support a vigorous and engaging public presentation of the arguments for and against change.[29]

He went on to state that the Government would make available $15 million, half to each of the two campaign committees to plan and manage their own campaigns. In explaining the need to modify subsection 11(4) of the Referendum Act, the Attorney-General stated:

Subsection (4) was inserted in what became section 11 of the referendum act by means of an amendment in the Senate at the time of the passage of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill. The subsection arose out of a concern at the time to establish a statutory prohibition against the government of the day funding partisan involvement in campaigns surrounding a referendum proposal. Specifically, the concern was that a government might support one case only.

Clause 4 of the bill is not an attempt on the part of the government to tip the balance in favour of either side of the debate on the republic.

Clause 4 is intended to ensure simply that Commonwealth expenditure on the government's three-phase program of public information activities for the 1999 referendum does not result in a technical breach of subsection 11(4) of the referendum act.

The government's intention is to give the Australian people who will be required to vote on a republic the best chance possible to understand the issues at stake and the arguments for and against change.

The Attorney-General's Department has indicated that subsection 11(4) of the referendum act, as it stands, may prevent public funding for the campaign phase of the information activities. The department has also said that the subsection arguably prevents Commonwealth expenditure on educational material which may be said to include any argument for or against the proposed law. Many kinds of educational material could conceivably come within the scope of such a prohibition. The class of educational material that may be regarded—in one sense or another—as an argument for or against change is potentially too broad.

Clause 4 of the bill would facilitate expenditure by the Commonwealth on public information activities by temporarily overriding the operation of subsection 11(4) of the referendum act.[30]

While the proposed 2013 referendum on the recognition of local government in the Constitution did not proceed, the then Government again chose to suspend the restrictions on government spending in relation to a referendum campaign. The Government legislated the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2013, which provided that (in section 4):

Subsection 11(4) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 does not prevent expenditure by the Commonwealth in respect of things done (whether or not by the Commonwealth) during the period:

(a)   beginning on the day this section commences; and

(b)  ending on polling day for the general election of the members of the House of Representatives in 2013.

In introducing that Bill, the then Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus noted in his second reading speech the established precedent (from 1999) of suspending the restrictions on Government spending for a referendum:

The bill also implements recommendation 11 of the [House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs 2009] report, which was to lift the current limitation on spending imposed under section 11 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. As many submitters to the A time for change report pointed out:

… the restriction on Commonwealth expenditure is a barrier to the development of better and more effective referendum process.

I would adopt the comments made by the member for Mackellar a moment ago about the need to ensure that electors are as informed as possible. That is what the lifting of this current limitation on spending is directed to. As the legal and constitutional affairs committee found in its recommendations:

It is apparent that referendums require a flexible and adaptable approach … the Committee is of the view that the funding level for referendum campaigns should be determined on a case- by-case basis and that decision should be taken by the Australian Government.

This bill lifts the limitation on government spending from when this bill commences until polling day for the 2013 general election. Lifting the limitation on spending is a sensible amendment which was also adopted in conjunction with the 1999 referendum—that is the last time that the Australian people were asked to vote on a change to our Constitution. The form of this provision in this bill to lift the limitation on spending is in exactly the same form as that used by the Howard government in 1999. I commend the bill to the House.[31]

In the Minister’s second reading speech for the current Bill the Minister was relatively brief in relation to Clause 4, stating:

A decision to change our Constitution is a significant national event, and it has been more than two decades since a change has been proposed. It is therefore important that the government can fund civics education in relation to the upcoming referendum on the Voice.

To that end, the bill will temporarily suspend expenditure restrictions in section 11 of the referendum act to ensure the government can provide Australians with factual information about the referendum.

This information will provide voters with a good understanding of Australia's constitution, the referendum process, and factual information about the referendum proposal.

The government has no intention of funding 'yes' and 'no' campaigns.

When the pamphlet requirement was introduced in the early 20th century, it was an important way of ensuring that all voters were properly informed about why their elected representatives supported or opposed a referendum question.

As the next referendum will be the first in the digital age, there is no need for taxpayers to pay for a pamphlet to be sent to households. Modern technology allows parliamentarians to express their views to voters directly and regularly through a wide range of sources, such as television, email and social media, that did not exist when the pamphlet was introduced in 1912.[32]

The Explanatory Memorandum does not go into much more detail than this, noting that the requirement for a pamphlet is outdated and that the suspension was consistent with the 1999 referendum. It also references the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs’ Inquiry into Constitutional Reform and Referendums, discussed above in the Background section of this Bills Digest.[33]

The Explanatory Memorandum notes that section 11 will only be suspended (as opposed to being repealed) to ‘allow these restrictions to be considered by future Parliaments for future referendums as appropriate’.[34] However, the fact that the subsection 11(4) spending restriction provisions have been suspended for every completed and intended referendum for the past 23 years suggests that the provisions no longer reflect the way Governments (both Coalition and Labor) intend referendums to be prosecuted, and therefore it might be appropriate for the provisions to be repealed and replaced.

Subsections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Referendum Act are the only avenues for Parliament to be formally involved in publicly advocating for or against a referendum question, through the production of the Yes and No cases. Suspending this provision and removing this involvement in authorising the Yes and No cases is likely to be the most controversial aspect of this Bill. While there is likely to be agreement that a legislative requirement to mail out relatively long essays to each household is now an anachronism, it seems likely that some parliamentarians will not appreciate being completely removed from the process. It also to some extent dilutes the significance of voting against the constitution alteration Bill, as that will no longer qualify a parliamentarian to be part of ‘team No’. As noted above, a 2009 parliamentary inquiry reported that there have only been three referendums where a Yes and No pamphlet was not distributed: in 1919, 1926 and 1928. In all three cases the then Government had legislated to suspend the provision that provided for the preparation and distribution of the pamphlets.[35]

The Government has not indicated exactly what form its ‘factual information about the referendum’ will take. In the October 2022–23 Budget the Government announced that it would allocate ‘$52.6 million over two years from 2022–23 to the Australian Electoral Commission and other agencies to commence preparations and support work to deliver the Referendum’.[36] In the subsequent Senate Estimates round there was some discussion with the AEC about the preparations for a referendum and Indigenous enrolment (which received its own amount of funding in the Budget), but not specifically around the education campaign.[37]

While the Government has committed not to fund a Yes or No case, under the operation of clause 4 of the Bill there will be effectively no legal limitations (beyond the requirement to appropriate the money) on what advertising or campaigning the Government might do in relation to the referendum. Again, this is likely to be a matter of some debate.

Authorisation of referendum material

The authorisation of referendum matter is provided for by Part IX of the Referendum Act. The Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017 provided considerably more structure to the regulation of electoral advertising for federal elections. That Act also inserted Part IX into the Referendum Act, largely mirroring the authorisation amendments in the Electoral Act. Details and background to the changes can be found in the Bills Digest to the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017.[38]

The provisions of Schedule 3 essentially propose 3 changes to the Referendum Act:

• create a new, more detailed definition of ‘referendum matter’
• ban foreign campaigners from authorising referendum matter and
• align authorisation requirements with more recent amendments to the Electoral Act.

Item 3 would repeal the definition of referendum matter (‘matter intended or calculated to affect the results of a referendum’) and item 2 would replace it with proposed section 3AA, which defines referendum matter as matter communicated or intended to be communicated for the dominant purpose of influencing voting at a referendum, as well as setting out further exceptions and matters to be considered, discussed below. The proposed new definition of referendum matter much more closely mirrors the definition of electoral matter in section 4AA of the Electoral Act. The current definition of electoral matter was inserted into the Electoral Act by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018.[39]

Due to the similarity with the definition for electoral matter these proposed changes will not be discussed in detail, other than to note that there are some exceptions to a matter being classed as referendum matter, such as it being the reporting of news, being for satirical, academic, educative or artistic purpose, or if it was by or to a person who is a Commonwealth public official (proposed subsection 3AA(6) of the Referendum Act). Proposed subsection 3AA(5) also provides for ‘matters to be taken into account’ when considering whether something is referendum matter, such as the (temporal) proximity to a referendum, (physical) proximity to a polling place, or whether the communication is intended to be public.

Essentially the same authorisation provisions have now been in place for two federal general elections and the AEC has extensive documentation on how it interprets these provisions of the Electoral Act.

The objects clause of Part IX (section 110B) of the Referendum Act is proposed to be amended by item 6 of Schedule 3 to include that one of the objects of the Part is ‘restricting the communication of referendum matter authorised by foreign campaigners’. This is largely provided for by item 12 which would insert proposed section 110CA. The definition of foreign campaigner is inserted by item 1 of Schedule 4, which proposes to amend subsection 3(1) to point to the definition of foreign campaigner in the Electoral Act. Foreign campaigners are defined in section 4 of the Electoral Act as ‘a person or entity referred to in a paragraph of section 287AA’, which is the section that provides the definition of a foreign donor. That is, the Electoral Act effectively equates a foreign donor to a foreign campaigner, an interpretation which is supported by the explanation of the foreign campaigner provisions on the AEC’s website. A foreign donor or foreign campaigner is any of the following:

(a)  a body politic of a foreign country;         

(b)  a body politic of a part of a foreign country;

(c)  a part of a body politic mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);

(d)  a foreign public enterprise;

(e)  an entity (whether or not incorporated) that does not meet any of the following conditions:

(i)  the entity is incorporated in Australia;

(ii)  the entity’s head office is in Australia;

(iii)  the entity’s principal place of activity is, or is in, Australia;

(f)  an individual who is none of the following:

(i)  an elector;

(ii)  an Australian citizen;

(iii)  an Australian resident;

(iv)   a New Zealand citizen who holds a Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (or if that Subclass ceases to exist, the kind of visa that replaces that Subclass).

Proposed section 110CA is closely modelled on section 321DA of the Electoral Act and carries identical penalties for a contravention: a civil penalty of 120 penalty units.[40]

Generally, proposed section 110CA provides that a breach of the civil penalty provision occurs where referendum matter is communicated and any of the following conditions (proposed subsection 110CA(1)) apply:

• a foreign campaigner approves the content of an advertisement that is fully or partly paid for (regardless of whether the foreign campaigner paid for it) or
• a foreign campaigner approves the content of a sticker, fridge magnet, leaflet, flyer, pamphlet, notice or poster or
• a foreign campaigner communicates referendum matter that is not one of the above two.

Proposed subsection 110CA(2) provides for certain exceptions (such as opinion poll research, a live meeting, or internal communication of the foreign campaigner), and notes that the evidential burden is on the foreign campaigner to establish the exception. Proposed subsection 110CA(3) provides that for a foreign campaigner that is not a legal person, the contravention is taken to have been committed by each member, agent or officer of the foreign campaigner who engaged in the contravention.

Items 15 and 16 provide the AEC with information gathering powers in relation to assessing compliance with the foreign campaigner provisions introduced in this Schedule. If a person contravenes a notice from the Electoral Commissioner in relation to these powers the person or entity commits an offence with a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units.

The remaining provisions in Schedule 3 are largely consequential to the other proposed amendments in the Schedule. Items 8 through 11 of Schedule 3 implement changes to the required particulars of the authorisation requirements table in subsection 110C(5) that are equivalent to those introduced to the Electoral Act by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Act 2021 but not mirrored in the Referendum Act at the time. The main change is that the name and address of the printer is no longer required for printed referendum communication, only the address of the authorising person.

Referendum financial disclosure

Schedule 4 of the Bill would implement a financial disclosure scheme for referendum campaigns (proposed Part VIIIA) that largely mirrors the scheme in Part XX of the Electoral Act. The Referendum Act has not previously required any financial disclosure for donations that are used for referendum expenditure. An important part of the proposed requirements is that they would effectively ban foreign money being used for referendum expenditure.

In brief, Schedule 4 would implement a referendum expenditure period of the six months before a writ to a referendum is issued, ending on the voting day of the referendum (item 1) and create a definition of referendum expenditure which is generally expenditure for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter (proposed section 3AAA of the Referendum Act).

Proposed Division 2 of proposed Part VIIIA would have the following effects in relation to declarations of donations:

• referendum entities would be required to provide a return to the AEC setting out the details of their expenditure, the total value of gifts received during the referendum expenditure period and the total number of people or entities who provided gifts, by 15 weeks after voting day (proposed section 109E)
• donors and recipients of gifts that individually or in aggregate exceed the disclosure threshold would be required to provide a return to the AEC detailing the amount, date, name and address of the person who made the gift if the gift is intended for referendum expenditure, within 15 weeks after the voting day (proposed sections 109F and 109G).

Proposed Division 2 of proposed Part VIIIA is quite similar to the election returns provisions of Part XX of the Electoral Act. The key difference is that there is no distinction between political parties and other entities. A referendum entity is any entity that incurs referendum expenditure above the disclosure threshold, which is defined as being the disclosure threshold in the Electoral Act (Schedule 4, Item 1). The disclosure threshold is specified in section 287 of the Electoral Act (and indexed under section 321A). The disclosure threshold for 1 June 2022 to 30 June 2023 is $15,200.

All referendum entities must disclose their referendum expenditure during the referendum period (proposed subparagraph 109E(2)(a)(i)), whereas only non-party independent candidates are required to disclose their election expenditure under the Electoral Act (subsection 309(1)).

Proposed Divisions 3 and 4 of proposed Part VIIIA relate to foreign donations and foreign referendum expenditure, respectively. Generally, under proposed Division 3, a donation of more than $100 cannot be given by a foreign donor or received from a foreign donor if that donation is intended to be used for incurring referendum expenditure (proposed section 109J). Proposed subsections 109J(6) and 109J(8) provide for criminal penalties up to 100 penalty units and civil penalties the higher of 200 penalty units or three times the amount of the value of the gift, respectively, for contraventions of the foreign donation restrictions.  

Proposed Division 4 (proposed section 109L) prohibits referendum expenditure of $1,000 or more by a foreign campaigner. It also prohibits fundraising for the purpose of referendum expenditure by a foreign campaigner of $1,000 or more in a financial year. Proposed section 109L would impose a civil penalty of the higher of 200 penalty units or three times the amount of the expenditure or fundraising for a contravention of the provision.

Proposed Division 5 of proposed Part VIIIA contains a number of administrative details in relation to the regulation and enforcement of the provisions of proposed Part VIIIA by the AEC. These provisions generally mirror the provisions in Division 6 of Part XX of the Electoral Act. Two notable provisions are proposed section 109Y, which requires the Electoral Commission to supply a report to the Minister on the operation of the financial disclosure provisions and requires the Minister to table that report in Parliament within 15 sitting days of having received the report, and proposed section 109W which provides that failure to comply with a provision of proposed Part VIIIA does not invalidate a referendum.

Part 3 of Schedule 4 clarifies that the donation disclosure provisions (proposed Division 2 of proposed Part VIIIA) apply to a referendum expenditure period of six months before the issue of a writ, if the writ is issued after the commencement of the section, even if that means the six-month period begins before the commencement of the Act. The foreign donor restrictions (proposed section 109J) only apply to gifts made after the commencement of the section; however, the foreign campaigner expenditure provisions (proposed section 109L) apply the $1,000 expenditure limits to the financial year in which the section commences and later years.

Part 2 of Schedule 4 would amend the Electoral Act. Item 7 of Schedule 4 would add an item to the table in section 320 of the Electoral Act that relates to requirements to publish determinations, notices and returns. Item 7 would provide that returns provided under proposed Division 2 of proposed Part VIIIA of the Referendum Act must be published by the AEC before the end of 24 weeks (around five and a half months) after the referendum day.

While the provisions in Schedule 4 of the Bill are relatively extensive, this is in large part because they effectively replicate a function of the Electoral Act that has not previously been included in the Referendum Act. The provisions do not generally bring anything new in terms of accountability, transparency or electoral integrity.   

In 2020 the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) conducted an audit of the AEC’s administration of the financial disclosure requirements. It concluded that the AEC’s management of the disclosure scheme was only partially effective, stating:

The AEC‘s management of the financial disclosures required under Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is partially effective.

The arrangements that the AEC has in place to administer the financial disclosure scheme are limited in their effectiveness. …

Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities are partially effective with the result that the AEC is not well placed to provide assurance that disclosure returns are accurate and complete. …

The AEC does not appropriately act upon identified non-compliance. It is not making effective use of its enforcement powers and as such has not implemented a graduated approach to managing and acting on identified non-compliance.[41]

While the ANAO noted that the AEC rejected the ANAO’s findings, the report gives reason to question the appropriateness of the current implementation of the electoral financial disclosure scheme that the Referendum Act would be adapting from the Electoral Act. The ANAO’s concerns may be magnified in the febrile environment of a potentially racially charged referendum campaign.[42]

It is worth noting that the JSCEM is considering a reference from the Government to consider reforms to the political finance regime for federal elections, including ‘real time’ disclosure of donations and a reduced disclosure threshold.[43] The Bill is agnostic on the amount of the disclosure threshold (it is defined by reference to the amount defined in the Electoral Act in item 1 of Schedule 4, so any changes to the disclosure threshold in the Electoral Act would by definition also apply to the Referendum Act). Changes such as real time disclosure of donations, however, would likely require further amendments to the Referendum Act if the two pieces of legislation are to remain consistent.

Other provisions

The remaining provisions of the Bill, specifically those in Schedules 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, largely propose to bring the Referendum Act into line with recent changes to the Electoral Act or update and modernise the drafting language of the Referendum Act. Schedule 8 proposes replacing four instances of ‘Ballot-paper(s)’ with ‘ballot paper(s)’, 131 instances of ‘ballot-paper’ with ‘ballot paper’ and 81 instances of ‘ballot-papers’ with ‘ballot papers’.

The most notable feature of Schedule 2 is that it updates the early voting period in the Referendum Act to a maximum of 12 days, consistent with recent changes to the Electoral Act introduced by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Act 2021 (item 4).[44] Under the Referendum Act where the referendum is not being held with a general election the Electoral Commissioner may declare the days during which pre-poll voting is available (paragraph 73AA(1)(b)), and the proposed amendment would restrict that declaration to being made no more than 12 days before voting day.

Also notable is that item 12 provides that a ‘Y’ mark by a voter should be treated the same as a ‘Yes’, and an ‘N’ vote as a ‘No’. This proposed change may not be strictly necessary, as the AEC’s published Ballot Paper Formality Guidelines state:

The prescribed method of recording a vote in a referendum is to use the words ‘yes’ or ‘no’ written alone (i.e. without qualification). In all cases, however, ballot papers must be admitted where the voter’s intention is clear (s.93(8) R(MP) A). Words with the same meaning as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (e.g. ‘definitely’ or ‘never’), an indication of either ‘Y’ or ‘N’, as well as ticks are all capable of clearly demonstrating the voter’s intention. (30)

The Explanatory Memorandum notes that these changes are for providing ‘greater legislative certainty’.[45]

Other items of Schedule 2 propose to amend the physical and logistical process of the scrutiny (the process of counting ballot papers) to reflect recent legislative changes to the Electoral Act. These provisions are adequately described in the Explanatory Memorandum and should not be controversial.

The provisions in Schedule 5 would extend the designated elector scheme implemented in the Electoral Act by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Act 2021 to the Referendum Act. Briefly, the Electoral Commissioner can nominate a person as a designated elector if that person is suspected or convicted of multiple voting. Once made a designated elector, the elector must vote by declaration vote. If a designated elector continues to multiple vote any multiple votes can be identified during the declaration scrutiny process and excluded from the count. The process is described in more detail in the Bills Digest to the Bill in which the provisions were introduced to the Electoral Act.[46]

The provisions in Schedule 6 would implement some of the changes made to the Electoral Act by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Contingency Measures) Act 2021 to the Referendum Act. These changes are described in the Bills Digest to that Act.[47] Briefly, in the case of an emergency that affects voting the Electoral Commissioner may make a legislative instrument that modifies certain aspects of the operation of the Act to allow voters to vote and campaigners to hand out material.  

Schedule 7 contains a collection of provisions which do not fit under any of the other categories, but again mostly bring the Referendum Act into line with changes to the Electoral Act over recent years. This Schedule also modernises the drafting language of the Act (a number of the provisions would replace ‘o’ clock in the afternoon’ with ‘pm’, and ‘p.m.’ with ‘pm’, for example).

The change in Schedule 7 to the penalty for the offence of interference with political liberty (item 25) brings the penalty into line with the equivalent offence under section 327 of the Electoral Act, which was changed by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Act 2021.

All of the amendments in these other provisions either have essentially no practical effect (changing ‘ballot-papers’ to ‘ballot papers’) or bring the Referendum Act into line with provisions that have existed in the Electoral Act for at least one federal election. They do, however, highlight the difficulty that recent Governments have had keeping the provisions of the Referendum Act consistent with the Electoral Act and provide an argument for a more radical re-think of the legislative framework for constitutional referendums, including repealing the Referendum Act and incorporating constitutional referendums into the Electoral Act as a special type of election, as recommended by the Committee inquiry in 2009.[48]

Concluding comments

Constitutional expert Professor George Williams described the changes provided for in the Bill as ‘largely cautious and conservative’.[49] This approach speaks of a Government that is conscious of the relatively short length of a parliamentary term and the need to not too radically change the referendum process for risk of taking attention away from the extremely important subject of the impending referendum itself. Most of the changes are not radical and will be familiar to regular participants in Australian federal electoral events. However, the levels of integrity and transparency that will be imposed by the donations and disclosures provisions will be no better than that for current federal elections, which are amongst the weakest in the country and are insufficient according to the Government’s own election policies.[50]

The provision to suspend the operation of section 11 of the Referendum Act is likely to provoke resistance. While the requirement for the preparation of the Yes and No cases may be regarded as anachronistic, it gives parliamentarians a genuine stake in the process of a constitutional referendum and a reason to vote for or against the constitutional alteration Bill. Recent parliamentary inquiries into referendums have also evidenced the parliament’s enthusiasm for the cases.

Suspending the restrictions on government spending in referendums has now become commonplace for referendums for both Coalition and Labor governments, suggesting that there is bipartisan agreement that the provisions require amendment. It is unclear why successive governments have felt the need to suspend the provisions rather than repealing them and leaving referendum funding up to the government of the day, or specifically providing for funding for a campaign. In the absence of this, the Parliament may be reluctant to write the Government a blank cheque in relation to referendum campaigning.

---

[1].      Damon Muller, Constitutional Referendums in Australia: A Quick Guide, Research paper series, 2023–23, (Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 8 November 2022).

[2].      ‘Referendum dates and results’, Australian Electoral Commission.

[3].      House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Inquiry into Constitutional Reform and Referendums, inquiry homepage.

[4].      Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 65.

[5].      Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 70.

[6].      Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 78.

[7].      Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 79–81.

[8].      Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 82.

[9].      Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 79.

[10].    Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 85–86.

[11].    Chapter 2 of the report provides a useful legislative and political history of the Yes/No case provisions and Australian federal referendums legislation generally and is recommended for readers who are interested in this history.

[12].    House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, A Time for Change: Yes/No? Inquiry into the Machinery of Referendums, (Canberra: House of Representatives, 11 December 2009).

[13].    Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 13–14.

[14].    Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 16.

[15].    Reith v Morling (1988) 83 ALR 667.

[16].    Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 16–18.

[17].    Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 56.

[18].    Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 58.

[19].    Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 65.

[20].    Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 68–69.

[21].    Julian Lesser (Shadow Attorney-General) and Jane Hume (Shadow Special Minister of State), ‘Labor's Lack of Detail Risks the Voice’, media release, 1 December 2022.

[22].    Anne Twomey, ‘The Government will Not Send Out Yes and No Case Pamphlets Ahead of the Voice to Parliament Referendum. Does this matter?’, Conversation, 2 December 2022.

[23].    George Williams, ‘Referendum Rules Benefit Education and Transparency’, Australian, 5 December 2022, 11.

[24].    Paul Kildea, ‘The Government Wants to Change Australia’s Referendum Laws. How will this Affect the Voice to Parliament?’, Conversation, 7 December 2022.

[25].    See Australian Parliament, Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022 homepage; Josh Butler, ‘Indigenous Voice Opponents say Labor is being 'Disingenuous' on Funding for Campaigns’, The Guardian, 4 December 2022; Peta Credlin, ‘Why Albo Wants to Use Voice to Silence Everybody’, Sunday Telegraph, 4 December 2022, 19.

[26].    Explanatory Memorandum, Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, 5.

[27].    Australian Government, ‘Part 2: Payment Measures’, Budget Measures: Budget Paper No. 2: 2022–23, 107.

[28].    The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.

[29].    Daryl Williams, ‘Second Reading Speech: Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999’, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 March 1999, 3761.

[30].    Williams, Second Reading Speech: Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, 3761.

[31].    Mark Dreyfus, Second Reading Speech: Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2013, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 May 2013, 3122.

[32].    Patrick Gorman, Second Reading Speech: Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 1 December 2022, 13.

[33].    Explanatory Memorandum, 12, 13.

[34].    Explanatory Memorandum, 13.

[35].    Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 13–14.

[36].    Australian Government, Budget Paper No. 2, 2022–23, 107.

[37].    Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Estimates, Official Committee Hansard, 8 November 2022, 32.

[38].    Damon Muller, ‘Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017’, Bills Digest, 101, 2016–17, (Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 2017).

[39].    A minor amendment was made to the terminology used in the definition by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Act 2021.

[40].    As of 1 January 2023 a penalty unit is equivalent to $275, up from the previous amount of $222: see Crimes Act 1914, section 4AA as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Act 2022. 

[41].    Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Administration of Financial Disclosure Requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, Audit Report, 8, 2020–21, (Barton, ACT: ANAO, 17 September 2020), 7–9.

[42].    See, for example, Josh Butler, ‘Marcia Langton Warns of Risk of 'Nasty, Eugenicist' Debate about Race Ahead of Voice Referendum’, The Guardian, 5 December 2022.

[43].    Inquiry into the 2022 federal election, Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) inquiry homepage.

[44].    For further information see Damon Muller, ‘Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021 [and related Bills]’, Bills Digest, 15, 2021–22, (Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 2021).

[45].    Explanatory Memorandum, 18.

[46].    Damon Muller, ‘Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021 [and related Bills]’, Bills Digest, 15, 2021–22, (Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 2021).

[47].    Damon Muller, ‘Electoral Legislation Amendment (Assurance of Senate Counting) Bill 2021 and associated Bills’, Bills Digest, 34, 2021–22, (Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 2021).

[48].    Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 69.

[49].    Williams, 11.

[50].    Damon Muller, Election funding and disclosure in Australian jurisdictions: a quick guide, Research paper series, 2022–23, (Canberra: Parliamentary Library, 6 December 2022); Anthony Albanese (Leader of the Opposition), Labor’s COVID Recovery Taskforce report; weight loss; agriculture; phone reception in Tasmania; visit to Tasmania; Federal election; national security; Labor’s policy agenda; aged care crisis; Scott Morrison’s failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, Transcript of Interview by Belinda King, ABC Northern Tasmania Breakfast, 23 February 2022.

 

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

---

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.