TOPICS: Sam sex marriage plebiscite
E&OE …
RAF EPSTEIN
Can we talk firstly about the way in which the money will be spent, $7.5m to each side, is that confirmed?
SENATOR SCOTT RYAN
Yes, that’s the amount that’s proposed
EPSTEIN
And there’s some, ah, just explain who will be vetting the advertisements that might be funded by that money.
SENATOR RYAN
So what we did when I put this legislation together was to try and reflect past practice as much as possible. So in this particular case, the last referendum we had was in 1999 about the republic. $7.5m was provided to a national Yes committee and a national No advertising committee, the members were appointed by the special minister of state and the attorney general at the time. We’re proposing to do the same now.
EPSTEIN
Forgive me for interrupting Scott, but those members decided who received the money or they actually [inaudible] the ad?
SENATOR RYAN
So, the…that was the campaign committees for Yes and No and the public advertising. There are limited purposes for which the public money that has been granted, or that will be granted to these committees, can be spent and it is essentially related to advertising and related services, like research and market testing, and creative work to underpin advertising.
In 1999 there was a committee of the government called the ministerial committee on government communications, we love acronyms so it was called MCGC, it’s got a new committee now, it’s current parallel is called the SDCC and the budgets prepared by the national Yes and the national No committees were submitted to that committee for approval to ensure probity with expenditure of Commonwealth funds.
EPSTEIN
So budgets were submitted to the committee?
SENATOR RYAN
The budgets were submitted to ensure that it was spent in line with the conditions that the Commonwealth outlined, which as I mentioned was related to advertising. And I’ll just read a bit of the guidelines from 1999 now, because we plan to apply them again.
EPSTEIN
Sure.
SENATOR RYAN
[Quoting] ‘Proposed advertisements are to be cleared by the MCGC’ – now it’s a different committee –‘prior to placement.’‘That MCGC checks will be limited to ensuring that the proposed advertisements do not infringe appropriate standards.’
Now, that is a process we’re putting in place.
EPSTEIN
Look, I know you’re not keen, I saw a little bit of your interviews earlier today, if the Australian Christian Lobby want to talk about another stolen generation, which is a phrase they’ve used in the past, could that be a taxpayer-funded ad?
SENATOR RYAN
Well in those interviews earlier today, I think it’s a long way to go before the committee membership is even decided. We’re proposing there be five members of Parliament and five members of the community who are associated with national Yes and national No advocacy; two members of Government, two members of the Opposition and one member from the crossbench. So I don’t think it’s appropriate …
EPSTEIN
How do you divide up the five in the Yes and No case, wouldn’t it be?
SENATOR RYAN
Five each. So there are two committees of 10.
EPSTEIN
OK.
SENATOR RYAN
So they’ll be five MPs yes and five members of the community who are supporters of change and there’ll be five MPs who support the status quo and five community advocates and prominent people who have been associated with the status quo campaign.
EPSTEIN
So there will be both MPs or Senators and appointed citizens vetting each of the advertisements?
SENATOR RYAN
Well advocates, I’d call them. You know, people who’ve been associated with the Yes and the No debate on this, it’s been taking place in the country for a few years.
EPSTEIN
But the people doing the vetting, do the Yes campaign people get to vet the No campaign advertisements?
SENATOR RYAN
No, so the committee that the budgets have to be approved by and the committee that has to clear the advertisements, to use the words from 1999, is a Cabinet committee made up of five members of the ministry.
EPSTEIN
OK, so it is essentially …
SENATOR RYAN
It’s an independent committee of the Yes and No campaigns.
EPSTEIN
But it’s um, its politicians vetting ads say from, I don’t know you know, GetUp! or from the Australian Christian Lobby?
SENATOR RYAN
No, no, no, it’s not, because the national Yes and the national Yo committees are using, they are separately established to run the campaigns for which they’ve been given the public monies.
EPSTEIN
So the church and the MPs who support them get to vet the churches’ ads?
SENATOR RYAN
Well no, if for example there was a group, the Raf Epstein Committee for Yes or Committee for No, you’re not vetted at all because you’re done with entirely money you’ve raised yourself.
EPSTEIN
Yeah sure.
SENATOR RYAN
This only applies to the advertisements that are designed by taxpayer funding and there is an ability to make donations to these committees as well.
EPSTEIN
But each side is effectively vetting their own ads when it comes to taxpayer funded stuff?
SENATOR RYAN
But then they have to be cleared by the Cabinet committee that clear every single other Government advertisement as well.
EPSTEIN
Hmm OK.
SENATOR RYAN
This is exactly how it happened in 1999 and that process worked quite effectively.
EPSTEIN
Are you comfortable that that process is going to stop the debate from getting out of control?
SENATOR RYAN
One of the more disappointing things I’ve heard from some people in this debate is, in my view a lack of faith in our democracy. I mean, we have debated some very difficult issues over the years in this country, we’ve had tightly contested elections that are very passionate when people go and vote, they can see the passion on polling booths.
I actually have a lot of faith in the way the campaign will be conducted. I also have faith in the Australian electorate that I don’t think they respond to some of the fears that I think some people have outlined could happen. I don’t think that will happen, but at the same time I don’t think it would work either.
EPSTEIN
Can I just play you one call we received yesterday, I’m not asking you to vet it, but it’s an example i guess of where the debate gets to very, very quickly. It was caller Ben yesterday
‘It’s an abomination and normalisation of this abnormal unification will never satisfy heterosexuals and they just feel that it’s normal for two men to be uniformed nor for two women, it’s not always normal to commit perversion.’
Scott Ryan, abomination, perversion, are you um, I mean that’s going to come up, are you comfortable with that?
SENATOR RYAN
Well did you broadcast that call yesterday?
EPSTEIN
I did and while he was saying those things I wasn’t quite sure if I should shut him down or not because I need to expose all sides of the debate don’t I?
SENATOR RYAN
Well the point I would make then is that the Government, no Government, can control what people might privately say and as I said, I think the processes were put in place which had been used before, the fact that we are appointing Members of Parliament that have an interest in their reputation, there will be five advocates who I think will be strongly pushing their particular case for change or the status quo. But truth be told, you know, that call was broadcast on a public broadcaster and no one’s saying that you shouldn’t have the ability to do that.
EPSTEIN
But I’m just asking you a personal, I don’t know if you want to be the Government’s point of view or your own, people saying on the radio and you’ve got, you know, kids out there who hear this, the parents have got it on the radio, they’re children in same sex couples, you’ve got teenagers who aren’t sure of their own sexuality.
Are you comfortable with words like abomination [talking inaudible]?
SENATOR RYAN
Oh no not at all. I’m not comfortable with that terminology whatsoever. Sorry, I might have misconstrued your question.
EPSTEIN
No that’s OK.
SENATOR RYAN
But this plebiscite, just like all public debates, and I think we’ve had a discussion around the nature of public debate previously on your program Raf, I’m a big believer that this is an opportunity to repudiate things like that as much as it is to resolve an issue. I think public debate can establish a new standard and I don’t think that despite some people saying very hurtful things, I do not think the Australian electorate has ever responded to that.
EPSTEIN
It’s a debate that very quickly gets very ugly; do you really have that much faith in our ability to stop it having a negative impact?
SENATOR RYAN
I don’t necessarily think it’s a debate that gets very quickly very ugly. I think in any public debate …
EPSTEIN
… I can assure you it does, you only have to look at my text screen or listen to the calls.
SENATOR RYAN
And that is part of the community, but I also think that the great bulk of Australians, the overwhelming majority of Australians are not people who say hateful or hurtful things. I think most people think of someone else before they make a comment. Now, we’ve resolved and took to an election a commitment to have this resolved by the Australian people and I think it was a relatively prominent issue over the last 12 months since the Coalition adopted this policy. And I think that if a mandate means anything, then Bill Shorten who said only a few years ago that he had no problem with a plebiscite, is he saying that somehow the electorate has got more hateful over the last few years.
EPSTEIN
He has qualified that. Let me put a few counter arguments to you: When the Howard government changed the law, they did this in parliament, why not do it in parliament again?
SENATOR RYAN
Well, at the time, it was supported, I think, by virtually everyone in the parliament and I think it is fair to say that given the debate where it was in 2004, which was well before I was in Parliament …
EPSTEIN
But if your measure of the reasons that [inaudible] past [talked over]. You’d do it through Parliament again wouldn’t you?
SENATOR RYAN
No, what it was doing was codifying then current practice. It is fair to say that, while there was debate about whether marriage should be an issue between a man and woman or any two adults now, 14 or 15 years ago where there was a push to have this resolved not by parliament or not democratically, what the parliament did at the time, with the support of the Labor Party, codified accepted widespread community understanding of marriage. What this is proposing is a change. It’s a change that I support and I will be voting Yes on, but it is a significant change and in order to generate the consent of the wide electorate in Australia, and I think it will actually help underpin any change if it is to happen, if it has this public endorsement and address some of those issues you mentioned earlier.
[ENDS]