This bill became law on Mar 27th, 2023.
Government & democracy
Australians campaigning heavily in a referendum now have to report their referendum spending and relevant gifts, bringing referendum finance closer to federal election disclosure rules.
The referendum law had not been used since 1999 and had not kept pace with election law changes, leaving outdated voting rules and weaker transparency for referendum campaigns. This bill updates referendum processes to match modern federal elections, expands disclosure and foreign-authorisation rules, and lets the Commonwealth fund neutral public education.
Australia’s referendum rules had not been used since 1999 and had fallen behind modern federal election law, so when the Albanese government committed in 2022 to a referendum on a First Nations Voice, the old act still lacked newer disclosure rules, foreign-authorisation limits and more flexible voting arrangements. This bill was introduced to update those mechanics before the planned 2023 vote, and after Parliament passed it in March 2023 the new law aligned referendum campaigning, public education and polling arrangements more closely with contemporary election practice.
The main criticism was that the bill could produce an unfair referendum campaign by not guaranteeing official yes and no campaigns, equal public funding, and enough balanced information for voters. That case was pressed most strongly by Coalition speakers and some conditional supporters, while crossbench and Greens concerns more often focused on stronger transparency and misinformation safeguards rather than opposing the bill outright.
Patrick Gorman MP introduced this bill. In the recorded House second-reading vote, support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, some crossbench members; opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 27 Mar 2023
Final passage
No counted final vote
1 recorded vote on the bill was found earlier in passage, but the final chamber agreement was not a counted division.
Passage speed
116 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australians campaigning heavily in a referendum now have to report their referendum spending and relevant gifts, bringing referendum finance closer to federal election disclosure rules.
People or organisations that run up referendum campaign spending only fall under the new disclosure rules once their spending goes over the federal election disclosure thresholdThe money amount that triggers reporting duties for referendum spending and gifts..
Foreign campaigners are now banned from authorising referendum advertising and other referendum material, with civil penalties if they do.
The Commonwealth can spend money on neutral public education about how referendums work, but that material cannot argue for or against the proposal.
Referendum voting can be run over more days and in more flexible locations, including letting mobile polling places also be used as pre-poll voting offices.
(1) A person or entity (the relevant person) must provide a return in accordance with this section if the relevant person is a referendum entity at any time during a referendum expenditure period.Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023 final Act text
referendum entity means a person or entity that incurs referendum expenditure during a referendum expenditure period that exceeds the disclosure threshold.Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023 final Act text
(1) A foreign campaigner contravenes this subsection if referendum matter is communicated to a person and:Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023 final Act text
(7) To avoid doubt, activities referred to in subsection (6) must not address the arguments for or against a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution.Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023 final Act text
(2A) Without limiting paragraph (1)(a), a place specified to be a pre‑poll voting office for a referendum may be a place that has been determined under paragraph 51(4)(a) to be a place that teams will visit for the purposes of taking votes under section 51 at the referendum.Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023 final Act text
Context
Australia’s referendum rules had not been used since 1999 and had fallen behind modern federal election law, so when the Albanese government committed in 2022 to a referendum on a First Nations Voice, the old act still lacked newer disclosure rules, foreign-authorisation limits and more flexible voting arrangements. This bill was introduced to update those mechanics before the planned 2023 vote, and after Parliament passed it in March 2023 the new law aligned referendum campaigning, public education and polling arrangements more closely with contemporary election practice.
Australia last ran a federal referendum under older machinery rules
The referendum law then in force became the baseline for future votes even as federal election rules later changed substantially.
Hansard ↗Government commits to a 2023 Voice referendum and introduces machinery changes
The second reading speech said the bill would support the Prime Minister’s commitment to hold a referendum in the next financial year and modernise how it would be run.
Hansard ↗Bill introduced to align referendum rules with modern election law
The explanatory material said the act had weaker transparency and outdated voting procedures, so the bill imported disclosure, foreign-authorisation and polling changes already familiar in federal elections.
Australian Parliament House ↗House passes the bill
After debate, the House approved the bill and sent it to the Senate, keeping the timetable for a later 2023 referendum on track.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate passes the bill with amendments
The Senate agreed to the bill and amendment packages, finalising the chamber’s changes to the rules for referendum spending, public education and voting operations.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
The House agreed to the Senate amendments so both chambers settled the bill in the same form and completed its passage.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into law. turns the bill into law before the 2023 referendum
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into law. made the updated referendum machinery available in time for the forthcoming national vote.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (01/12/2022): Joint Standing Committee on Electoral MattersA parliamentary committee whose election inquiries are cited as a source for many of the reforms copied into referendum law.; Committee report (13/02/23)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 88 to 52.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill could produce an unfair referendum campaign by not guaranteeing official yes and no campaigns, equal public funding, and enough balanced information for voters. That case was pressed most strongly by Coalition speakers and some conditional supporters, while crossbench and Greens concerns more often focused on stronger transparency and misinformation safeguards rather than opposing the bill outright.
Most criticism was about safeguards and fairness settings, not the need to modernise referendum machinery itself.
No guaranteed equal campaigns
Critics said the bill set the rules for a referendum without guaranteeing official yes and no campaign bodies or equal public funding, which they argued could skew the contest and leave one side better resourced than the other.
Voters might not get balanced information
Opponents argued voters needed a formal yes and no pamphlet and clearer official material so Australians could hear both sides before voting on constitutional change. They warned that without those safeguards the process would be one-sided or less informed.
Transparency rules still did not go far enough
Some supporters said the bill improved referendum rules but still left weak points on donation disclosure, truth in advertising and protections against misinformation. Their concern was mainly that the framework was still too thin, not that the bill should fail altogether.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 88 to 52. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Passed 62 to 16. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents.
This left the bill without the proposed truth-in-political-advertising regime.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 29 to 36. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
This was a second-reading statement vote about providing voters an official pamphlet to explain both sides of the referendum.
Defeated 3 to 54. Support came from One Nation and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Greens, Nationals, and minor parties and independents.
This was a second-reading statement vote pressing the government to change the timing of the referendum process rather than the bill text.
Defeated 15 to 23. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and UAP.
This package was part of the bill's machinery changes to standardise referendum administration and integrity rules.
Defeated 24 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
This was a second-reading style proposal aimed at structuring the referendum campaign, not changing the constitutional question itself.
Defeated 17 to 27. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. One Nation had split recorded votes.
This package sought stronger transparency for donations and more physical space around polling locations during referendum voting.
The Senate agreed to seven Government amendments to the referendum machinery bill on voices.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Thorpe’s proposal, decided on voices, would require a secure telephone voting method for eligible voters in remote areas, care, hospital, disaster, overseas and itinerant circumstances.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Pocock’s proposal, decided on voices, would add social media services to the list of entities covered by the relevant referendum campaign provision.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Thorpe’s proposal, decided on voices, would let eligible people who apply for enrolment and meet identity checks cast a provisional vote at a referendum.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Thorpe’s proposal, decided on voices, would give remote areas longer mobile polling periods and create a special rule for referendum mobile booths in remote areas.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Hanson’s proposal, decided on voices, would establish a process for citizens to register a referendum proposal and meet signature and verification requirements.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Pocock’s proposal, decided on voices, would add social media services to the relevant referendum campaign provision.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Thorpe’s proposal, decided on voices, would give the Human Rights Commission new functions to prepare and publish impartial referendum information, including material in First Nations languages.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected Pocock David's proposal on voices, covering would add a parliamentary statement creating a review panel to assess referendum pamphlet arguments before they are authorised.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected Hanson Pauline's proposal on voices, covering would add a parliamentary statement creating a citizen-initiated referendum process with signature thresholds and verification steps.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected Waters Larissa's proposal on voices, covering would change enrolment and voting rules so people who are otherwise eligible but not on the list can still cast a referendum vote.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 7 Government amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Patrick Gorman supports the bill and says it will modernise referendum rules, bring them into line with election machinery, and improve transparency and integrity while allowing factual public education about the Voice referendum.
Read in Hansard ↗Leeser says the opposition supports the referendum machinery bill’s modernising changes, but cannot back it because it drops the formal yes and no booklet and the equal treatment he says are needed for a fair referendum.
Read in Hansard ↗Birmingham says he wants the bill to pass, but only if the government tightens the referendum process so it is fair, minimally changed and gives Australians enough detail and confidence.
Read in Hansard ↗Tink supports the bill and wants the referendum machinery modernised so Australians can vote on constitutional recognition of First Nations people.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
8 speakers · 8 support
“This bill is well worth supporting, and I commend it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill advances the government's commitment to hold a referendum to enshrine the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Australian Constitution, the Voice that will advise the parliament and the executive about matters that affect First Nations people. The Prime Minister has said the referendum will be held sometime between October and December, so there is a pressing need for us to modernise the legislation that governs how this referendum will be held.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“When passed, this bill will modernise and streamline the referendum act to support voter familiarity and voter confidence in the process, as well as enabling the successful delivery of the referendum by the Australian Electoral Commission.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The world was a very different place 39 years ago. Social media didn't exist, computers could barely fit on a desk and modern forms of communication were but a dream. The notion that we run a 21st-century referendum based on archaic laws is absurd, and so I rise today to speak strongly support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 2022. Whether or not you support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, this legislation is crucial. At the end of the day, the job the Australian people send us here to do is to make laws. If you're a Labor government, you make good laws. And so this is exactly what we're doing. Elections, referenda and the machinery that governs them are the beating heart of our democracy. A referendum is the voice of the Australian people, speaking and directing their government down a path. Whether an election runs well is a difference between legitimacy and illegitimacy. We have seen the division a contested election can cause in communities in the United States. Australia must never head down that path, which is why the machinery that governs our upcoming referendum is so vital.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This Bill will modernise the legislation that will govern how this Referendum will be conducted.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill will advance the Prime Minister's commitment to hold a referendum to enshrine a First Nations voice in the Australian Constitution, a voice that will speak to the parliament and the executive about matters that affect First Nations people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The amendments in this bill are important and necessary to deliver a modern referendum in which the voting process and experience are similar to that of a federal election. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their contribution and commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The amendments in this bill are important and necessary to deliver a modern referendum in which the voting processes and the experience are similar to those of a federal election. I once again thank my colleagues for their contribution, and I commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
40 speakers · 42 contributions · 8 support · 19 oppose · 12 mixed · 1 unclear
“There's much in this bill that's sensible, particularly around aligning many of the rules of the referendum with those that occur in federal elections. We live in an age of foreign interference, and we support measures that seek to modernise referendum machinery to bring it into line with election machinery designed to safeguard Australia's institutions against foreign interference. It's right to modernise, because we've also seen much change since the last referendum, including online campaigning and, with it, the emergence of malicious actors. So the machinery for a referendum should be in line with a federal election, and we support that, but we're opposed to the discarding of formal 'yes' and 'no' cases prepared by members of parliament in a booklet. Giving Australians a formal case from each side that's been approved by the members who will vote yes and the members who will vote no will add to this debate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition has welcomed the engagement from the government on the bill but until we have our concerns addressed exactly the position of the coalition is to oppose the bill. It is important to note that the changes included in the bill will likely become the new normal and be used as a precedent for all future referenda.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As it currently stands, as proposed by the government, I don't think it passes that test. Certainly, for at least a significant proportion of this chamber, we will not be able to go hand on heart to the Australian people and say that, as it stands, the process for making this decision is impartial, fair and untainted by any perceptions of bias or of aid for one case or the other.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to make a contribution to the debate on this important legislation that we have before us, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. I want to state at the outset that I won't be supporting this bill, and I will lay out the reasons why throughout my contribution. I also want to make it very clear to those that might be following this debate here today that this bill is about setting up the mechanism to be able to have a referendum; it's not actually a substantive debate on the referendum itself, and it's certainly not a decision on the final outcome. It will be up to every Australian to decide what their position will be. I'll touch on those two latter points throughout my contribution today, and you will be able to indicate from what I say where I'm at with it, but I just want to really focus on the mechanism bill that is before us and address the concerns that I've got with the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I turn to the issues that the coalition have indicated they would like to see addressed with regard to the progression of this bill. There are three key areas. The first one is the restoration of a pamphlet to outline clearly and directly the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns as we head toward a referendum. That is something that has been in place in every referendum, as far as I'm aware, since 1912—a good 91 years ago. The second is the establishment of official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations so that we know who we're dealing with and how to apply the rules and we make it easier for the AEC to administer the laws related to campaigning, disclosures et cetera. Of course, then there is ensuring that appropriate funding is available to each of the organisations that I've just mentioned—the official 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations. Having that arrangement and establishment in place is essential. As I said before, one of the vital characteristics to ensuring we preserve democracy in the way that we thrive and depend upon is to have a process based on integrity and where voters are fully informed through the process we're setting up today through this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will reserve my right, as others have before me, to see what this final bill looks like after the amendments have been put to the chamber before I make a decision about how I intend to vote on it. Of course, there is much that could change over the coming days, with the amendments that are before us. As I said, I absolutely support the right of Australians to vote on important issues and to have their say on this particular issue, but I also support their right to have fair and unbiased information on which to base their decision when they go to the polls to vote in this referendum. I am absolutely a supporter of the appropriate mechanisms that this institution, the Parliament of Australia, has held proud since Federation, and I think that what we have before us today, what we are likely to see in the coming months and what we've seen from this government's behaviour in previous days is a government that's prepared to trash the convention that has led to this place being held in such high esteem for so long, in an attempt to tick and flick an election commitment. They are now prepared to provide a lopsided, one-sided approach to this.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This amendment would delay the consideration of the bill until such time as it reflects a stronger and more balanced approach to conducting a referendum. This is something that the Senate should consider carefully. The decisions on this bill will set the precedent for all referenda into the future. It's what Australians expect. It's what Australians deserve. It's a referendum machinery that is separate from the question that is being asked. It's a referendum machinery that puts legitimacy and trust into the electoral process. It minimises the chances of foreign donations appearing in a referendum. It minimises the chances of electoral laws that we expect, that we require and that we demand being broken. It minimises the chances of foreign interference in a process that is so important, not just in elections but particularly so when we are changing our foundation document, the Constitution.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As the bill currently stands, I will not be supporting the measures contained in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Thirdly, the government needs to make sure that it provides details to give Australians confidence that those questions have been answered and that, when they vote, the details have been considered in advance. Yes, it will be a voice established by the parliament; but, in being provided the details in advance, Australians will have greater confidence than if they simply hear answers that say, 'Those are matters to be resolved later.' I urge the government to act on all three pillars, because I don't wish to see this put and fail. I do wish to see us achieve constitutional recognition, and it starts with getting this bill right.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want to make it very clear from the outset that, sadly, I'm not in a position to support this bill as it currently stands, because of Labor's complete lack of support for fairness and integrity in this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Orthodoxy is the way to approach referendums in our country, and, even then, they cannot be guaranteed of success. Getting the mechanics right is very, very important. Paying attention to these things is very, very important. The referendum machinery issue is what voters will see first, and they will quickly come to a judgement about whether or not the referendum mechanism has integrity. I've got to say, the government has started shabbily. The Prime Minister goes to great pains to say that this is not his referendum proposal. When he says that, bells should ring, because if it's not his proposal then who is accountable? If it's not his proposal, whose proposal is it? If it's not his proposal, who is going to have to deal with the disappointment if it's unsuccessful? The Prime Minister must take more ownership, and, thus far, this is off to a very, very bad start. It is bad for our democracy and bad for supporters of this Indigenous recognition proposal.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, what the coalition want to see is equal funding, equal access to information and equal standing for Australians who share a common love of country but, perhaps, differing views on one particular issue. It's about being a mature government, a fair government and a responsible government. That's what Australians expect. With all that said, I cannot support this bill as it's currently written, and I want to support it because we need to modernise our approach to referenda. We will support a bill that allows for a referendum with informed voters and a process with integrity based on precedent.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will reserve my right on the bill, to see what the final bill looks like after this chamber has its deliberations around amendments. We support Australians' right to vote. I support their sovereign will, and I will respect whatever that is, come the time. But I am absolutely committed to them being able to have information, so they can make an informed choice and so that we don't rig the results to make sure one side has more money flowing into it than the another. I support fairness and egalitarianism, because I am a small d democrat, and this is an important conversation that our community is going to have over the coming months. I want it to be fair.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill makes fundamental changes to how referenda are conducted in this country, removing the requirement for a pamphlet to be provided which outlines the cases for and against change. Why would a government that's so confident that this is something that people want—they're so confident that this is just going to sail through—be eager to hide the details? Why would less information be a good thing? How can this be the way forward?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But if you look at the broader circumstances, where we sit in the world of information right now, the government's refusal to accept an official 'yes' and 'no' case that provides some process of oversight to those 'yes' and 'no' cases—the capacity to track donations through those cases, the capacity for the 'yes' and 'no' cases to assist people with false information, in this world of information overload—is greatly concerning. The opposition doesn't raise this to be obstructionist; we raise this genuinely, because we want a good process. We want the opportunity for people to have their say. We want the opportunity for Australians to listen and hear those messages, to understand which are the effective, appropriate and official messages. I really don't understand why the government isn't prepared to agree to very reasonable requests that we will make in our amendments to this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I come back to the Prime Minister's speech at the Chifley centre. It was a good one. I ask that when he asks: 'What shall we feel like the day after the referendum,' that he reflects upon his answer to that. It can't just be about his commitment to the 'yes' case. It has to be that our democracy is a stronger one the day after, no matter the result, and that starts with improving this bill because it isn't quite there.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Recommendation 2 of the dissenting report, though, goes to clause 4 of the bill, which relates to the suspension of section 11 of the act. Now, there are three key things that the coalition believe we need to have, if, indeed, we are to have a population in Australia who are well informed and are confident that the information they have received is unbiased and factual, as opposed to many things that you see in social media which end up being opinions as opposed to a considered case.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I do have ambiguity about my position on this bill, as the coalition does, depending on potential changes and amendments. We think this is important. There are some very significant principles regarding the integrity of our Constitution and how it is changed into the future, and that will guide the way in which we determine our position on the various questions on this bill later in the debate. Given the appointed hour, I conclude my remarks with that.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For my own part, I come to these matters with goodwill. I have a generally constructive disposition to this bill and on the substantive issue. But I hold very deep, serious concerns in relation to the approach being taken by the government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Constitutional reforms are great. Again, I would encourage us to do more of them. It's a time for people to have a greater say on the long-term future of their country and on things that can't be done by political will. But I think this bill needs to be constructed in a way that is fit for purpose for the long term. This doesn't do it; therefore we can't support it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is, quite simply, an attack on fundamental pillars of democracy, and it has a shallow disregard for the Australian electorate. It comes from the heart of a government which has given up on its people as informed citizens capable of thinking through constitutional choices for themselves. It is essential that we all in this place defend the rights of voters to be informed not just for the imminent but for all constitutional referenda and for our constitutional reform to pursued with integrity and accompanied by rigorous and respectful debate. We have done it before, and we can do it again.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“With those comments, I support the position of the coalition in relation to this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I say to those opposite and I say to all Australians: this is extremely important. It is hard to change our foundational document, and it should be hard to change our foundational document. It is a matter about which all Australians deserve the utmost chance to hear arguments for and against, to hear the case for and against. Without that, I think we leave ourselves in a very difficult and dangerous position as a democracy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As I said when I commenced my comments, the conduct of a referendum to change the founding document of our nation, the Australian Constitution, is an important moment for all Australians. The Australians who'll be required to vote in this referendum deserve every assistance possible to ensure that they are able to make an informed choice. We know from history that Australians do not vote for changes in the Constitution lightly. They take this duty seriously, and the government should take its duty to all Australians seriously. Providing all Australians with reliable information and protecting the integrity of this process need to be at the forefront of this bill. We do not believe that this bill reaches the minimum standards that should be in place for such an important process, and, on that basis, we are opposing the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On those grounds alone, we think there's good reason—it is sensible—to have a formal structure around the referendum that allows a pamphlet to go to every household and that allows there to be 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, that says who can help with the management of campaign donations, and that has equal funding for those campaigns so that we do not have in Australian politics the nefarious influence of big money attempting to change the Constitution against the will of the Australian people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today to speak against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill proposes to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, and, in doing so, threatens to undermine the way we do referendums and, by extension, to undermine the Australian Constitution—the bedrock of the institution I stand in today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I stand here today to defend the right of all Australians to be presented with a real choice at this referendum, a genuine choice informed by fair and balanced information from 'yes' and 'no' campaigns that have received fair and equal funding. Like my colleagues, and, most recently, Senator Payne in her contribution, I too want to adopt a constructive approach to this bill. But the government must establish a level playing field. Getting this bill right is so important. If this this bill is not right, this is going to do this whole process fundamental damage. It has never been more important to ensure that our referendum machinery provisions are fit for purpose. Again I say to Senator Farrell, who is in the chamber: we really need to get this right.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill makes fundamental changes to how referenda are conducted in Australia and they go beyond what has been done in the past. In particular, there's the removal of a requirement for a pamphlet to be provided outlining the cases for and against the change. We will support a bill that allows for a referendum with informed voters and a process with integrity based on this precedent. This is what is expected in a strong and robust democracy. We cannot alter our electoral laws based on one referendum. A change to this document should not be undertaken lightly; our Constitution has served our nation well and has resulted in our strong and stable democracy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, I will come back to the point that I made earlier: we are one people, we are one country and we are all equal. I do not support the bill in its current form.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“If a position put to the Australian people deserves to receive enough support to successfully pass, then it should be able to achieve that support without getting an unfair leg-up from the government of the day.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So we will oppose this bill. We hope the government comes to its senses and creates that level playing field. They've restored the pamphlet for the 'yes' and 'no' cases, but they're yet to establish official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and they're yet to appropriately fund those official campaigns. In closing, we will oppose this, and I call on the government to implement those two amendments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So it's my position that this chamber should oppose the bill. I ask you to do the same.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We welcome the engagement from the government on this bill, but until we have our concerns addressed we must and will oppose this bill. In the general community I still hear people say that they don't even know what the Voice is. There is little confusion about the concept of constitutional recognition, but the concept of the Voice remains insufficiently explained. It is simply not people's priority and not front of mind for people. The cost of living is the predominant issue I hear about. Yes, although the public narrative seeks to ignore them, there are also Aboriginal people who will not vote for it. Quality information needs to reach people, regardless of where they live and of whether they've formed a position.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Susan McDonald on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
McDonald says the coalition will back the referendum machinery changes if they restore the pamphlet and other safeguards for an informed and fair vote, but she criticises the government for not yet providing the final amendment text and for failing to address donations and transparency. Her main concern is that Australians need clear, consistent information before any constitutional referendum.
“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.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Susan McDonald says she is not speaking against the bill and supports the referendum process, but wants the government to strengthen it with a pamphlet, equal funding, and other safeguards so voters can trust the result.
“I'm not speaking against this bill, but I'm raising the very real concerns that I have, and I will wait for the government's responses on these important points. I hope that they work constructively to strengthen the referendum process, because, as I said previously, the government will fail to have a successful referendum if they do not provide a transparent, trusted process of integrity that allows Australians to vote with confidence.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The bill represents a significant update to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The parliament should consider the fact that these changes reflect how we go about changing our national document not only today but also in the future. The decisions on this bill will set the precedent for others. It's the view of the opposition that we should remain consistent with past practice, and we'll be opposing the bill until the government addresses these issues.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In all of those circumstances, it is pleasing to note that the government has agreed to the distribution of pamphlets to all Australian households. If the government also agrees to establishing both the 'yes' and the 'no' organisations and agrees to proper, equal funding of both of those organisations, this bill will be supported by those on my side.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill is very vague and one-sided, and I won't be supporting the bill unless it's changed considerably. By the sounds of it, that is not going to happen.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“My sense of what Senator Hume is trying to pursue here is just that: that the changes that are to be made to the referendum machinery act are changes which ensure that Australians have confidence that the referendum to be conducted later this year on the Voice has been conducted with integrity and appropriate governance and oversight.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Perin Davey on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Davey says the Nationals support Australians having a say, but they are unhappy with the bill because the government has not backed a fair and transparent referendum process. She says it should include a yes-no pamphlet, official campaign organisations and equal funding.
“We on this side have raised three very important points with the government, three points that are fundamental to having a referendum with informed voters, open and transparent processes and integrity. The first point was to ensure we have a pamphlet to outline the 'yes' and 'no' cases, as we have done in all but very few referenda in the past.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Davey says the National Party wants Australians to have a say, but only through a fair and tightly structured referendum with official yes and no campaigns, equal funding and clear pamphlets. She says she has not yet finalised her position on the bill and will reserve her right until later in the debate.
“I know there is a lot left to go in this debate; there are a lot of speakers on the speakers list for the second reading, and I will listen to all their contributions with interest. There are also a lot of questions that need to be answered and that hopefully will be answered during the campaign committee. So I do reserve my right. I have not yet finalised my position on this very important matter, and I will listen to the committee stage of the debate with interest and reserve my right.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“I rise to support the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill symbolises the start of the process of holding a referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament in our Constitution. It's the vitally important first step.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 4 support
“I rise to speak on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, which provides the framework for how referenda are conducted, and we welcome many of the reforms in this bill to update that framework. We will be supporting this bill, but we would like to see that framework strengthened and we'll be moving amendments to strengthen it in many very important ways.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I wish to speak in general support of the intentions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill. It is providing much-needed updates to how referendums are conducted in this country to keep up with our times. It is also a way to prevent foreign interference with matters in this country, and they are truly ours to resolve.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure that this referendum is in fact successful. This bill is just the start. The Greens are supporting this bill, but, as Senator Waters already said, we are seeking to improve it. We need to get First Nations people on the electoral roll, communicate information in language, ensure voting is accessible in remote communities and make provisions for people to enrol and cast their vote on the actual day of the referendum.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Greens will be supporting this bill, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, because the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 provides the framework for how referendums are conducted, and we welcome many of the reforms in this bill to update that framework. In the past 10 years, the parliament has conducted several inquiries into constitutional referendums and reforms. Those inquiries recommended a comprehensive suite of reforms, including aligning referendum laws with broader electoral laws, removing the restriction on governments funding education and promotion campaigns, modernising the way information about the 'yes' and 'no' cases was distributed, and establishing an independent expert panel to advise on the wording of referendum questions and information campaigns. This bill does some of those things.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 mixed
“One Nation will support this legislation, which effectively aligns referendum practice with election practice. This is not to be taken as support for the question to be put to the Australian people at the referendum on the Voice to parliament proposed by the Labor government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This seems to be yet another example of teal Senator Pocock working for and serving the Labor Party. While I will support this bill at the moment, and I will support most amendments, if the teal Pocock amendment is successful, I will oppose the bill. I cannot support such a dodgy amendment. I will wait, though, and listen to opposition speakers raising specific concerns regarding funding, tax deductibility, audits of campaigns, and security from international interference.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 4 support · 1 mixed
“I agree, then, with the importance of modernising the legislation that will govern how this referendum is conducted.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I welcome this bill to amend the referendum provisions. There's no doubt that the bill as it is currently drafted is for another century, another era, and it needs to be updated. But there are some key areas that really haven't been addressed by the government. For me, that's sloppy. At the end of the day, we don't want to be looking back, after the debate on the referendum, and saying: 'This debate has been marred by so much misleading and deceptive content. If only we had done something about fact checking, stopping false claims being made as to the effect of the amendment that's proposed to the Constitution. If only we had done that.' I call on the government to really do that at this point. It's important that we protect this process. We mustn't have an erosion of trust in the referendum. It really is so important that we get this right. It means you have to tick all the boxes, not just some or the easier one or the more obvious ones.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These changes are important, but in my view they should be coupled with truth in political advertising laws under the member for Warringah's 'Stop the Lies' bill. Already in the initial stages of this debate we've seen information manipulated and deliberate omission of information during the political discourse. If disinformation is translated into political advertising and set loose via social media algorithms that favour false and negative information, it will spread like wildfire. Democratic processes should be free, fair and trusted, and that means stopping the lies that we see repeatedly during electoral periods. This is even more important in the context of a once-in-a-generation referendum that rests on the framework of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its three pillars: Voice. Treaty. Truth.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise in support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 and to make some additional comments in relation to some of its more contested elements, consistent with my additional comments in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, following our inquiry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in support of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, although I will be moving a number of amendments to try to improve it. When it comes to setting up the conditions for a referendum, we've heard arguments that tradition is important, and I agree. There is much to be said for looking to the past and seeing how things were done and how that served us. But that should not stop us from ensuring that we are learning from the past and that we are putting into place things to deal with the challenges that we know we are facing when it comes to referendums and elections: the changing landscape when it comes to social media; the expectations of Australians when it comes to truth in political advertising; political donation reform; and advances in technology to allow those things to be dealt with by the government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 88 to 52.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Message from Senate reported
Message from Senate reported
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters; Committee report (13/02/23)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (1 Dec 2022): Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters; Committee report (13/02/23)
APH bill page notes
