Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, particularly given my membership and participation on the Joint Standing Committee for Electoral Matters. I can report to the House that the committee is functioning very well under the leadership of the chair, Senator Linda Reynolds, and deputy chair, the member for Scullin, and with the very good participation of Senator Rhiannon from the Australian Greens. The issues faced by the committee are complex and detailed, despite many in this parliament and outside of it being of the view that change can be very, very easy. This is because in campaigns, where there's a will there's a way—and later I will address one of the more disgusting and deceptive forms of political communication that this bill will now prevent being sent, without revealing who the communication has been sent by.

The bill addresses the recommendations made by the first interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2016 federal election, tabled on 9 September 2016. It relates specifically to the authorisation of voter communication. Current authorisation requirements have not kept pace with technological change. Those who might want to hide their identity from voters can do so by communicating via media not covered by the current authorisation rules, including new and developing technologies. This restricts important information being available to voters when they make decisions on election day, and limits the ability of regulators to identify the source of a communication in the case of noncompliance. Consistent authorisation, as directed by this bill, allows voters to assess the credibility of all communication when forming their own personal political judgement.

This bill ensures that electoral communication is clearly authorised, irrespective of how it is communicated. Authorisation requirements are consistent across different communication channels. With consistent and higher obligations on all groups subject to the Commonwealth electoral funding and finance disclosure regime, the public are safeguarded from misrepresentation and false statements purportedly made on behalf of Australian government bodies.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act is one of the oldest pieces of Commonwealth legislation, and the act's authorisation regime is outdated. Modern campaign techniques, such as robocalls and bulk SMS messages, do not require an authorisation informing voters of who is actually contacting them. Subsequent legislative amendments have also created inconsistencies in the legislation, with separate requirements for broadcast media and internet advertising. This is outdated when the same advertisement can be screened or broadcast on streaming services. There are inconsistencies related to printed material as well. Flyers have different requirements from how-to-vote cards; some items of clothing are exempt, while others require authorisation.

This bill requires that all paid advertising, regardless of the medium used to communicate it or the source of that communication, must be authorised. Communications—whether paid or unpaid—made by or on behalf of entities with disclosure obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act must be authorised. This includes registered political parties, candidates and third-party campaign groups whose expenditure on influencing an election exceeds the disclosure threshold, and donors whose donations exceed the disclosure threshold.

Provisions that require authorisations for printed material—for example, leaflets, flyers, corflutes and how-to-vote cards—will be retained. Authorisations will now inform voters of the name of the political party behind the communication. Currently, this is only a requirement for broadcast advertising. Other entities with disclosure obligations under the Electoral Act will also be required to put their names to their communications, including associated entities of political parties and third-party campaign organisations.

Putting your name to your communication sounds like something very reasonable. While we are here today because the Electoral Act has not kept up with technology, it would be remiss of me not to address the highly and knowingly deceptive communication by the ALP at the last federal election—and not just during the last federal election but, worse, on the day itself. The despicable text message that was sent by the Labor Party— (Quorum formed)

I thank the member for Fremantle. It's very good to draw to the attention of the House the matter of the despicable text message sent by the Labor Party at the last federal election.

See this speech in context