Topics: Same sex marriage plebiscite
E&OE …
DAVID SPEERS:
One of the ministers responsible for this, the Special Minister of State, Scott Ryan thank you for your time this afternoon.
SENATOR SCOTT RYAN:
Afternoon David.
SPEERS:
So, why should taxpayers be funding the Yes and the No campaigns?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well, the precedent from 1999 the last referendum we had was…
SPEERS:
This isn’t a referendum though.
SENATOR RYAN:
Ah, no. But what we’ve done is that we’ve ensured that the experience for voters will be like an election or referendum, and in many ways it is similar to a referendum.
SPEERS:
It’s not binding on the Constitution.
SENATOR RYAN:
It’s not a constitutional change, but…
SPEERS:
It’s separate to a referendum.
SENATOR RYAN:
In the constitutional sense, but it is actually asking the public for their view on the question, like a referendum would do. And so in 1999, $7.5 million was provided to a national Yes advertising committee, and a national No advertising committee.
SPEERS: Do you get my point, this is more like an opinion poll than a referendum?
SENATOR RYAN:
No I respectfully don’t think so David.
The Government has made clear that if the plebiscite is carried, which will be by simple majority of yes verses no votes counted right around the country, that we would legislate rapidly to amend the Marriage Act.
SPEERS: But you’re not saying Government MPs would have to vote yes?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well, I think it is fair to say that every, that if the referendum, sorry if the plebiscite passes there’s absolutely no doubt that the legislation will pass through the Parliament.
SPEERS:
Well you’d hope so but you don’t know.
SENATOR RYAN:
Absolutely no doubt. The overwhelming majority, who I have specifically asked this question to, even those who don’t support change have indicated that if the plebiscite is carried they will vote for that result to be reflected in the Marriage Act.
SPEERS:
You’ve said that a cabinet Committee, or the Service Delivery and Coordination Committee of Cabinet, will approve all the advertising from the Yes and the No campaigns, taxpayer money they are going to use. What will be deemed acceptable or unacceptable?
SENATOR RYAN:
So again, this is replicating what happened in 1999. It was then called the Government Ministerial Communications Committee. And to ensure both probity around the expenditure of public funds, budgets were presented to that committee by the national Yes and the national No case and in fact our party room and the Prime Minister and Julian Leeser were members who were on those committees at the time. And then after the approval of the budgets, because the amount of money that can be used, that is being assigned, is used for limited purposes and it is essentially related to advertising and the related costs.
SPEERS:
So what’s acceptable in terms of that advertising?
SENATOR RYAN:
So if I could read out the words that were used in 1999, which we plan to replicate, “proposed advertisements are to be cleared by the committee prior to placement. But checks will be limited to ensuring the proposed advertisements do not infringe appropriate standards”.
SPEERS:
That’s what I’m getting to, what are appropriate standards here?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well appropriate standards are those replicated by the commercial televisions, they have some commercial standards for advertising.
SPEERS:
Do they have to be truthful?
SENATOR RYAN:
Ah well the question of truth in advertising and in politics is a question actually that I’ll be addressing tomorrow in my reference to the electoral matters committee, but I think it is fair to say that the television advertising standards are reasonably comprehensive and they have to fit with those because we do place the advertisements through the Government media buying agency, they will be authorised by the national Yes and No committees, but we don’t want to waste any money.
SPEERS:
All right but it’s a pretty straight forward question, do the ads taxpayers are going to fund have to be truthful?
SENATOR RYAN:
I would think that they would all be truthful.
SPEERS:
All right so if they said for example ‘kids deserve a mum and a dad’, it’s a pretty stock standard campaign line from the No case.
SENATOR RYAN:
Well I don’t want to get into those issues just yet because we haven’t even sought public nominations…
SPEERS:
This is the whole point. Taxpayers are going to fund these ads and you’re saying they will be truthful ads, but who knows is that truthful? Kids should have a mother and father.
SENATOR RYAN:
I actually, firstly I don’t think that’s a fact, that’s an opinion.
SPEERS:
That’s what I’m getting to, so that no opinions be allowed in the advertising.
SENATOR RYAN:
Well no no, I think opinions are allowed in all advertising, now the point here is that as we move forward…
SPEERS:
So that sort of ad would be all right?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well look I’m not going to go into the content of advertisements. There are commercial guidelines, which are quite comprehensive, and we intend to apply those, and when we seek nominations from the public and from the five MPs in Parliament, who will be appointed to these committees by the Attorney-General and myself, then they will bring forward their proposals they will conduct their own research and then there’s an opportunity to discuss those matters then.
SPEERS:
All right, but okay so, but something that’s opinionated, they can run that in their advertising?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well again I don’t want to get into sort of hypotheticals about what might be in ads and what might not be.
SPEERS:
But you’re going to have to, you know, given you’ve decided to fund this with taxpayer’s dollars.
SENATOR RYAN:
In the past, there used to be a taxpayer-funded booklet for referenda that actually went to every voter in Australia. Now under the Act, that only goes to every household with a voter. The cost of that, which we’re not doing, is actually marginally more than the cost of the public funding we’ve provided here and I actually think that reflects changes in the media market. I think it’s fair to say that 20 or 30 years ago, a voter information booklet from the AEC with a Yes and a No case would probably have a slightly greater penetration than it would now. The aim of this public funding is to ensure there is fairness in the way that this campaign is conducted.
SPEERS:
Yeah, but one man’s version of fairness in this debate is very different to another’s.
SENATOR RYAN:
And that underpins in fact, different opinions on the very question itself. And that is one of the reasons…
SPEERS:
So all opinions can be expressed with this taxpayer money?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well again David, I’m not going to go into hypotheticals. I think everyone could nominate an opinion that you probably couldn’t get broadcast on commercial or public television in Australia because there are rules around these things and I think that is something that the committees will take into account. We didn’t have the problems on this in 1999 and I actually have a lot of faith that the advocates of both sides will act in good faith…
SPEERS:
It’s a slightly different issue though, or quite a different issue when you’re talking about family make-ups to who should be our head of state.
SENATOR RYAN:
It’s a moral issue, rather than a series of serious and technical changes to the Constitution, but I do also recall that in 1999 there were just as wrong opinions on both sides.
SPEERS:
There certainly were. Will media outlets be expected to run balanced coverage of ‘Yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns here?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well, coverage is a matter for news departments and the Government is not in the business of…
SPEERS:
So there’s nothing you can do then to stop a media outlet from saying ‘we’re not going to run the No ads at all’
SENATOR RYAN:
No. We have actually proposed to adopt the Broadcasting Services Act provision that applies in elections which is that if one side of a debate, or in that case, one party, runs advertisements, an opportunity has to be given for the other side.
DAVID SPEERS:
Okay, so for example, Channel Nine or Fairfax or Foxtel, they couldn’t say “we’re not going to run those No campaign ads”. They have to run them?
SENATOR RYAN:
As a principle. No.
SPEERS:
They have to run them?
SENATOR RYAN:
If they provide an opportunity for one side, they need to provide an opportunity for the other side to advertise on the same terms.
SPEERS:
You say that a simple national majority will be required for the Yes or the ‘No case to actually win, but also each electorate and state vote will be made public. So if the electorate of Menzies, for example, voted No, would Kevin Andrews be able to say ‘well my electorate voted No, I’m voting No’.
SENATOR RYAN:
Well I’m not going to speak on behalf of my colleagues. You have access to them and you can ask them. I will be reflecting the result of the public vote in my vote. The overwhelming majority of my colleagues that I have spoken to are the same.
SPEERS:
But there’s no Party Room position on this?
SENATOR RYAN:
The Liberal Party has always respected the conscience of members. I think the key thing here is to not get caught up on one or two people who might have a different view, but to recognise that the overwhelming majority of the Coalition Party Room has made it clear they will reflect the result of the plebiscite and therefore if the plebiscite was carried it would be passed through Parliament very quickly. If the plebiscite’s not carried, there is, of course, no need for legislation.
SPEERS:
According to the AEC’s website, when it comes to actually having a plebiscite like this, if the bill passes the house and is then rejected in the Senate, which may happen here, the Governor General may put the proposal to voters as last proposed by the first house with or without any amendment agreed to by both houses. Is that right?
SENATOR RYAN:
No. That only applies to referenda that change the Constitution.
SPEERS:
Not plebiscites?
SENATOR RYAN:
Not a plebiscite.
SPEERS:
So it needs to go through both the House and the Senate?
SENATOR RYAN:
It needs to go through the House and the Senate to apply all the electoral rules that people are so familiar with and which I think, and the Government believes, are so important to a fair and transparent process.
SPEERS:
And what if that doesn’t happen? No plebiscite?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well I’m not going to go there David because it was only a few years ago when Bill Shorten said he had no problem with a plebiscite. We took this position, that has been very widely publically debated, to an election. The issue itself of same sex marriage has been very widely debated over the last several years. I think it was one of the more prominent issues in the campaign and definitely has been a prominent issue in public debate since the Coalition adopted the policy last year. So the real question now is ‘is Bill Shorten going to stand in the way of a public vote that will resolve this issue on the 11th of February next year’?
SPEERS:
Scott Ryan. Special Minister of State. Thank you very much for joining us.
SENATOR RYAN:
Thanks David.
(ENDS)