Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take great pleasure in joining the debate on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters: Interim report. I want to say from the outset that we have every right, in this place and throughout our nation, to be very proud of our electoral system and the democracy that it protects. I would say that our system is not broken, but that does not mean that our system can't be improved. The whole point of JSCEM, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, conducting a review of the 2022 federal election is to look at how the election was conducted but also to then offer constructive ideas and practical solutions to any challenges that have been presented, by the community, to us in hearings. People have a great deal of interest in this topic. The committee then provides those recommendations to the government of the day to see where we can find some level of consensus and, where there are areas that are disputed, how we can reach a negotiated outcome. I do say, quite sincerely, that our system isn't broken, but it can certainly be improved, and what it requires is eternal vigilance. In this place, there are excellent members on both sides of this chamber who appreciate and value our democracy above all else.

The fundamental challenge in the conducting of a federal election is to maintain the trust and the confidence of the Australian people, particularly in the outcome. Regardless of who wins, the Australian public must have confidence in the outcome and that their voice is being heard. They may not agree with the result, but they must have trust and confidence in the fact that their vote has been recorded and counted and the winner has been declared. It is a great tribute to this nation that, in the 15 years I've been here, there have been changes of government which have occurred with no violence, with no protest about the outcome and with a seamless transition—despite the fact that we may disagree on policy areas, transitions occur in a manner which does great credit to the Australian people. That doesn't happen by chance; that requires the eternal vigilance of people in this place and of the Australian Electoral Commission in particular. I want to congratulate Australian Electoral Commission senior staff, in particular, for the way they conducted the 2022 election and for the way they were prepared to call out false information when it was circulated, particularly on social media. Contrast our election result—the outcome here in Australia in 2022—with the most recent United States federal election and how that election result in the US was disputed and allegations that the election had been stolen were allowed to ferment online. It resulted in violence, with a siege on Capitol Hill. Contrast that to what occurred here in Australia last year where there was a change of government but no suggestion whatsoever that the result was anything other than fair. The AEC deserves a high degree of credit, and the candidates who participated in the election overwhelmingly deserve credit as well, for working to maintain public confidence and trust in the result.

Although it does have a very boring name, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has an important role, and I congratulate the chair of the committee, the member for Jagajaga, for her careful consideration of the issues and for the report before the chamber today. I do agree entirely with the chair's opening remarks. She said, 'Democracy is best when it's conducted in way that is transparent.' That goes to the heart of the coalition's dissenting report, in relation to this interim report. There is plenty we agree on in the report in terms of how the election was conducted, but the coalition's dissenting report does highlight some areas where there is a level of contention and which I think require further debate in this place and in the broader community.

We have a participatory representative system of government which relies very heavily on people being able to participate in an open and transparent way. The participation of Australians as party members or supporters of their chosen candidate is an important part of our system. People need to be able to participate in this system without fear of retribution, such as the boycotting of small businesses, and that's why our dissenting report on recommendation 4 goes to this issue around participation. We're recommending a new offence of electoral violence or intimidation be added to the Electoral Act. The reason for that recommendation is very clear. We are concerned, and I'm sure other members in this place would be concerned, about the risk—in fact, the reality—of intimidation, harassment or abusive behaviour towards candidates or towards their supporters, whether it be at polling booths or when they're out meeting people in the streets. It's important that people understand, even if you don't agree with anything that candidates putting their names forward are saying, they still have a right to nominate, put their name forward and be judged by the Australian people. So our dissenting report recommendation 4 is all about an offence of electoral violence and harassment of candidates or their supporters.

Similarly, we in the coalition have a concern in relation to the disclosure threshold of $1,000, which is recommended in the interim report. In our view, that is too low. We believe that is too low a figure, and our recommendation is for $8,000 per financial year, which is effectively the sum of all the states and territories. Most of the states and territories have now had significant reform and have a threshold of around $1,000 in many cases. The argument we're making is that disclosure threshold for a federal election, in the order of the sum of all the states and territories, is a more realistic disclosure threshold and would not discourage participation or that risk of secondary boycotting which we are concerned about.

There's another dissenting report recommendation which I think is an important one. It really gets down to the nuts and bolts of how the AEC manages our voting centres. Our recommendation 3 is about limiting the prepoll period. We believe the prepoll period of 12 days is too long. We find that it is an unnecessary burden on candidates and their volunteers, but I also think it's costly for the AEC to maintain those voting centres for such a long period of time. The real risk here, on top of volunteer burden, long nights and security issues for candidates and their supporters, is one the member for Kennedy was referring to. Things can happen in that 12-day period where people are not fully informed when they go to vote. So reducing prepoll voting to a period of time that we're arguing for of one week—maybe with extended hours to accommodate shiftworkers—would give people enough time to still exercise a democratic right in a way which is not too difficult for them, their family or workload but would allow them to be fully informed before they go to vote. We are worried that people are voting too early. It's convenient for them, but they may very well not be fully informed about the issues that are facing the Australian people at that time. So we so think a shorter period for prepoll voting is something that should be considered.

Our proposed recommendation 1 in the dissenting report will be contentious. It's something that we will need to grapple with as a democracy and as a parliament, as we go forward. At what point do those who identify as Independents actually become a party? You yourself, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, standing alone as one person, are clearly an Independent. The point we're trying to make is that once you start gathering as a group, conducting yourselves under a common name and common policy areas, such as the teals, are you then in fact a party? At what point do you become a party and have to be caught up in the same rules that impact the party political system? And it's not an attack on the teals by any stretch; it's more of a conversation about when you actually become a party, as distinct from an Independent. The interim report goes to a much broader conversation around fundraising, around campaign donations, around spending caps.

I want to make just one quick point in the time I have left. The campaign arms war that we feared and continue to fear—which is the pathway the United States has gone down over many years now—is a pathway to be avoided. I think we have general agreement on that point. But we need to be very careful that we don't exaggerate the risk here in Australia. You need only look at the evidence we heard during these hearings in relation to the United Australia Party. The United Australia Party has been criticised for spending in the order of $123 million in the 2020-21 financial year, and that is pointed out as an example of a campaign arms race. But that $123 million met with very little electoral success. The party spent a lot of money but actually didn't change too many votes; they certainly didn't buy the Australian election. The point I'm trying to make is that the campaign arms war is something to be wary of, but let's not exaggerate the risk or the impact. I do not think Australians have had the election bought by any stretch.

But we are right to question whether the money has the potential to distort votes. Big money can come from a variety of sources, but it can also come from unions or other third parties. So I think any reforms we make in this place have to make sure that they catch all the people who might want to make a contribution to the electoral system.

The key principles of the dissenting report from the coalition are clear. We want equal treatment for all political participants. We want fair and open transparent elections. We want to encourage more political participation. And we want to make sure any laws or any changes that we make do not unfairly benefit one candidate over another. Here we are all in the business of winning elections. But the overwhelming majority of MPs I meet want a fair fight. They want clear rules of engagement. They want to ensure that the public retains faith and confidence in the results. And, regardless of whether their team wins, the public want to know that they can be confident that the government is going to govern in their interest. I thank the House.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for this comprehensive interim report on the conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters. As the member for Gippsland has noted, there is much to be admired about the Australian electoral system, and I agree with the member regarding the level of trust and general perceived fairness of the Australian system compared to other countries, specifically the US, where, as a journalist, I've covered elections and politics extensively and where the 2020 poll was disputed.

Compulsory voting ensures greater engagement by voters, although we need to do more to encourage people to, once they turn 18, get on the electoral roll, and we need to find ways of making sure First Nations voters, particularly in remote Australia, are able to exercise their democratic rights. In the year of the Voice referendum, this is particularly important. As the Northern Land Council submitted to the inquiry, it is imperative that all eligible Aboriginal people have the opportunity to have their say. It is disturbing that, despite continuing efforts by the Australian Electoral Commission, it's estimated that less than 80 per cent of eligible First Nations citizens were on the roll prior to last year's election compared with the overall total of above 96 per cent. I'm pleased that the committee has considered this issue and will have further hearings and seek further advice as it moves towards its final report.

The interim report notes the importance of adequate funding for the AEC to make sure electoral enfranchisement and participation are maximised for First Nations citizens. I trust that the government will act to ensure that the AEC has the money and resources needed to fill the gaps the committee has identified.

More broadly, the committee pointed to absence of transparency in our electoral laws as a significant deficiency. Voters should know who is behind the candidates vying for their vote. At the moment they do not. Too little is required to be disclosed, too late. So, I support the recommendation of the majority report for real-time disclosure on all donations above $1,000. As the member for Curtin, who is on the committee, noted, this is a no-brainer, is simple to implement and is a measure to improve public confidence in the integrity of our democracy.

The majority report also recommends the introduction of donation and expenditure caps. On the surface, this sounds attractive, but, again, as the member for Curtin says in her additional comments in this report, the devil is in the detail, especially if caps become a further barrier for entry by non-party candidates, making the playing field even less even.

It's worth noting that in Victoria, where there are caps, the Melbourne Age reports Labor sources as saying that, as the ALP contemplates running a candidate in the forthcoming state by-election in Warrandyte, it would still cost half a million dollars to run a credible campaign. In Victoria, candidates are nominally limited to a donations cap of $4,320, but, because of other administrative and legal arrangements to major parties, have an additional $100 million to deploy to support their election campaigns. In effect, as the Age put it in September last year, it's:

a $100 million, taxpayer-funded wall that protects those already represented in parliament against those seeking to get in.

At the federal level, we know that the major parties enjoy significant financial advantages even though at the last election more than a third of voters did not vote for either of them.

As the recipient of donations from Climate 200, funded by 11,000 donors, I acknowledge that community-raised funding helped me and others get elected. I'm grateful for this and so, I believe, are Australians who want a more diverse parliament. Having voluntarily declared my own election donations, I would argue we need more transparency about the sources of major parties' income. Loopholes in the current law mean that $90 million in donations to the ALP and the coalition went undisclosed in 2021-2022.

Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I would gently rebut the member for Gippsland for his comments in regard to the teals, which is a media construct, and you will note that only yesterday I voted the opposite way to the rest of the so-called teals on a legislative vote in the chamber, which I think puts paid to any suggestion that the so-called teals are a party.

I would say much has been made of Climate 200, which is fine. However, the major parties are able to hide much of their funding, receiving tens of thousands of dollars from corporate interests through cash-for-access dinners and business forum memberships. What we also know is that the major parties receive substantial money from the gambling industry. Companies like Tabcorp and Crown have donated $23.9 million to the major parties over the last two decades through associated entities. This creates serious questions about why the major parties have resisted meaningful restrictions on gambling and gambling advertising for so long.

Again, having covered Donald Trump's election in the United States, I'm always ready to discuss ways in which we can reduce the amount of money committed to political campaigns and the implications of it, but transparency and levelling the political playing field must be the first step. As the misinformation and disinformation surrounding the debate about the Voice referendum is again demonstrating, we must legislate for truth in political advertising, as we should for truth in media more generally. The committee recommends the Commonwealth adopt the model being used with some success in South Australia. As the South Australian Electoral Commission advised the inquiry: the effectiveness of its handling of complaints during election campaign periods depended on ready access to experienced legal counsel and adequate resources. These are factors the government must keep in mind if it keeps its commitment to act on truth in political advertising, and I acknowledge and support the work of the member for Warringah in this regard.

More broadly, given that there appears to be more consensus on improving transparency than other matters raised in the report, I would argue that is where the initial focus should be. We need to take care at a time when support for and trust in democracy is fragile and close to a third of voters no longer support a major party that we do not take steps that inadvertently or otherwise further tilt the playing field away from candidates who have demonstrated support within the communities that they aspire to represent.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the interim report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 2022 federal election. I would note that such reports and investigations have occurred after every federal election and it has been rare that recommendations in such reports have been implemented. So it will be interesting to see, with the change of government in this term, just which of the recommendations get picked up.

I welcome the increase in transparency around donations that has been recommended in this report—in particular, the reduction in the disclosure threshold and the introduction of real-time disclosure of donations. There is no doubt that these recommendations will improve the transparency of the funding behind elections and have strong support within the community, who want to know who is funding political campaigns. However, I do have concerns about the potential impact of some of the broader campaign finance reforms that have been touted, in particular around campaign caps and donation caps, because unless these are unilaterally imposed and are done carefully they are ultimately embedding and entrenching incumbents' advantage and major parties' advantage.

Some of the recommendations in the report will be counterproductive from the democratic point of view of broadening communities' choice at elections, because we know the major parties have an ability to collude around these types of reforms to make it more difficult for Independent and non-aligned members to mount successful campaign challenges. I was here in the last parliament when I saw that, when the coalition and Labor colluded to change legislation around donations, for example, and around transparency to create an advantage and embed the status quo of the major parties' duopoly. So I support the additional comments made by my fellow crossbencher the member for Curtin in relation to the need to ensure that reforms do not amplify incumbent and major party advantage. Of course, it means the government will need to come to these reforms with clean hands and a real good-faith and genuine desire to improve democracy and not just to embed their own advantage.

I support the need for review of probity requirements and a consideration of enhancement of the scope of prohibited donations. The Australian public are absolutely outraged at the impact of big money, especially vested-interest money, when it comes to Australian politics. Benefactors of significant government spending, such as the big four consultancies—PwC, EY, KPMG and Deloitte—should be prohibited from making donations. We only have to look at the scandals and the allegations of the last month in relation to that incredibly wrong relationship between some of those consultancies and government—contracts for huge amounts of money and then this vicious pool of influence that is reinforced with donations. I note with pleasure that we have the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will be commencing shortly, mostly from the push and the work of Independent and crossbench members to really push the major parties on such measures. These are the areas that must be looked at, the areas of that really vexatious link between interest and influence.

There is always a risk that donations will influence policy. Where the source of donations is at odds with broader community values, the barrier to donations and influence needs to be strong. The influence of industries responsible for significant social harm needs to be restricted. The tobacco, liquor and gambling industries, minerals councils and mining cause significant social harm for profit and are areas that benefit from huge amounts of public spending. New South Wales, for example, already prohibits donations from the tobacco, liquor and gaming industries. We should be looking at having some restrictions at the federal level but, in fact, we saw in the last parliament major parties collude to make it easier to circumvent federal rules to have the benefit of state rules when it came to Queensland.

Large corporations and registered unions should also be prohibited from making donations to political parties without member approval. Again, there is an influence and a benefit for access that is gained. We still do not have, in a timely way, access to ministers' diaries, for example, or the Prime Minister's diary, for that matter, which has been the subject of freedom of information attempts. The Australian people are entitled to know what link there is between donations and influence, whether it be from the private sector or unions, and decision-making and ministers who are making decisions when it comes to large spending. Large corporations and registered unions should therefore be prohibited without member approval, and member approval requirements should be developed similar to those in place in the United Kingdom.

I do welcome in this report the focus on the progress made in relation to misleading and deceptive political advertising. I must say that when I came into politics in 2019 it was a shock to discover that whilst we have protections for consumers when it comes to misleading and deceptive advertising when it comes to goods and services, there is nothing, no protection, when it comes to citizens exercising the most important right they have during elections. The report recommends that the Australian government develop legislation or seek to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to provide for the introduction of measures to govern truth in political advertising, giving consideration to the provisions of the South Australian Electoral Act 1985.

I'd like to remind the government that the work has been done to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and I have proposed a private members' bill which is still on the Notice Paper, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022. The bill is heavily informed by the South Australian Electoral Act. I have consulted widely with eminent experts across academic and think tank communities. It's seen as a responsible and proportionate response to the threat of misinformation and disinformation that is increasingly pervading elections in Australia. It also attempts to cover referendum advertising, but sadly the government voted with the coalition against debating the bill prior to the referendum advertising kicking in.

Almost three-quarters of Australians came across false political advertisements during the 2022 federal elections. Australians were relentlessly targeted with SMS advertising making all sorts of wild claims. A sceptic might claim that lies have always and will always be part of politics, but research shows that the sheer quantity of false political advertising is going. Nine in 10 Australians want truth in political advertising laws legislated before the next federal election, according to the nationally representative polling from the Australia Institute. Importantly, the bill that I proposed also seeks to capture disinformation and misinformation spread in referendum campaigns.

In his review of every Australian referendum, Scott Bennett concluded that a great deal of exaggeration and distortion is standard fare. Already, baseless claims that the Voice would constitute a third chamber have polluted the public debate. For this reason, Professors Gabrielle Appleby and Lisa Hill recently recommended enacting truth in political advertising laws to protect the legitimacy of the referendum. Adopting the bill already on the Notice Paper could, I respectfully suggest, quickly ensure a more respectful and honest debate in the upcoming referendum.

Recommendation 12 of the report recommends that the government establish a division with the Australian Electoral Commission to administer such legislation. I think that is a sensible recommendation. In the bill that I've proposed, the Australian Electoral Commission is responsible for the receipt and initial assessment of complaints, with the ultimate recourse to the courts. This approach is consistent with the South Australian approach. The key concerns raised are resourcing the Electoral Commission, and that can certainly be taken care of; recommendation 12 addresses it.

Similarly, restriction of the bill to matters pertaining to statements of fact will restrict the ability of parties to prosecute concerns around political bias. Any legal remedy to address misinformation and disinformation must not violate the implied freedom of political communication guaranteed under the Australian Constitution. Freedom of political speech and expression is the lifeblood of a thriving democracy, but that does not give carte blanche to provide misleading and deceptive facts. There is a vast difference between opinion and fact. This must be legislated to protect the Australian people as soon as possible.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A number of speakers here are representing or supporting the teals. I don't know what we spent in the last campaign, but I would be very surprised if it was over $200,000. One of the teal members got $1.8 million, another one got $1.75 million dollars, another got $1.6 million, another got $1.3 million, and another got $1.9 million—and now they get up and talk about donations!

I represent families that are struggling to pay off mortgages and are working in the coalmines. Twenty thousand families work directly in the coalmines in Queensland. These people want to close the coalmines down so that they have no income and no jobs. If you live in Moranbah, where the hell are you going to get a job if the coalmines are closed down? Intelligent people, starting with the minister herself, Plibersek, know that technology has moved on. I'm sorry, ladies! Technology is way past you. Intelligent people in the world know that you have algae ponds which absorb CO2. I'm not crying about saving the planet. I have made my contribution, of course, and I'm still making my contribution, but I don't cry at night about it, and it's not my policy. Surely, you should know—as the minister, Tanya Plibersek, knows—the names of the algae that you use. I am told that, in Israel, hardly any CO2 is going into the atmosphere at all because of algae ponds, so don't tell us we've got to do this. I'm sorry: you're 10 years behind the game. The game has already moved on.

That little piece of coal contains an immense amount of energy. There's nothing really much outside of atomic power that contains that much energy. Alright, it's been creating a problem. I would agree totally with the teals that there is a rising problem. I don't share their view on climate change. It may or may not be happening, but I most certainly know what's going to happen in the oceans—

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I interrupt the member for Kennedy and remind him that he needs to be speaking to the report specifically. I also remind the member for Kennedy that, when referring to the minister, he shouldn't refer to her by her name. Refer to her by her title, please.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most certainly, Mr Speaker. I respect your view in this matter. With all due respect, a philosophical point of view is being funded by massive amounts of money. Our point of view is being funded by nothing. The coalmining union in New South Wales is run by a bunch of wokes. Double degree, done nothing in their lives—that's how I describe them. They slither out of a university with two degrees—and I'm not saying all the executive fall into that category and most certainly not our coalmining executive in Queensland. It's just the opposite. All of them worked in the mines. They have dirt under their fingernails. But these people slither out of university, and they slither into positions of power. They only have one compass direction in life, and that is their own personal ambitions. Unfortunately and sadly, this place is comprised mostly of those people.

We're talking about money for funding campaigns. I doubt whether my little party—to my knowledge—has a single significant funder or a significant amount of money. To meet the very onerous requirements of the act, our four members of parliament have had to put our hands into our own pockets. The requirements are drawn up for a major party spending $50 million per year. Our little party, to be fair, would spend $200,000 a year, yet we've got to meet the same onerous requirements. We have to pay a lawyer and an accountant to come in. We can't possibly meet these requirements, and they're not created for us. There is a machine created that really excludes people like us. I don't want to deny that a lot of people who have come in under the teals banner have made a very excellent contribution, and they are not part of an ugly system of corporate CEOs who run society and run it for themselves. I would hope that, as they mature as a political philosophy, they will come more and more into line with me, the Greens and you most of all, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, in not bowing the knee and carrying out the will of the powerful and super-rich people in society.

Everyone in this place should read Piketty's book. I know a lot of people on the planet have. It is not the 'haves' class anymore; it is the CEO class. These people are paying themselves $10 million a year. If you're the head of a big corporation in Australia, you'll get $10 million a year. The great Christine Holgate was flabbergasted when she found out she had to pay herself $8 million a year and she cut that amount of money by 70 or 80 per cent. Money is controlling this place. In that I would agree very strongly with the Teals and the other crossbenchers, such as yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would agree very strongly that money is controlling this place.

You have to look no further than the current decision on pharmacies. There is no doubt that a quarter of the pharmacies in Australia will vanish. They're going to halve the amount of money going to a pharmacist. They will halve the amount of money that we, the people who use pharmacies, have to pay, so they're saying, 'We're doing it for you.' I'm sorry. I've been in these places for 50 years. Follow the money trail. What happens here is about the 15 per cent—and these are the people financing the political campaigns, Mr Deputy Speaker. Twenty per cent of the pharmacies are going to vanish, and that 20 per cent will now be occupied by TerryWhite and Chemist Warehouse. The minister was stupid enough to say in the estimates hearings, 'We have spoken to Chemist Warehouse but we haven't spoken to the guild.' They haven't spoken to the pharmacists but they have spoken to the corporation! Therein tells you, Mr Deputy Speaker, why over a third of the people in Australia voted for people like you, people like me and people like my colleagues on my right-hand side here. They will again, and they will continue to do so until those opposite stop carrying out the will of the people who run society—the powerful CEOs. They slither out of universities and slither into positions of power.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just remind the member for Kennedy to stay relevant to the committee report.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, please, it is most relevant to the report. Please understand that what I'm asking here is: who finances the political parties, the big machines? I'm not having a go at Clive Palmer—I've always considered him a friend—but where does his money come from? I'm not here to denigrate Clive, I can assure you of that. I regard him as a friend. But $123 million? Alright, it didn't succeed in getting him very far, but there is no doubt that money is lethal in politics.

Speaking as a person who has never had any money to run a campaign in their whole life, I have personal feelings about it, but more important is the bigger picture. It would be interesting to see how much Chemist Warehouse and the TerryWhite corporation gave to political parties in the last election. Terry White was the leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland. He's out of the company now, but I'm sure his relationships live on well after he has left the scene.

Debate adjourned.