Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson and I have provided a dissenting report, but it is important to note there are many, many, many things in this report with which we agree. We agree with many of the recommendations either entirely or in principle, or with the sentiments underpinning them. That needs to be placed on the record.

One of the areas where perhaps we do diverge in some respects from our good friend Senator Carr is in regard to the preponderance of time in which the report deals with extreme populism on the right wing. We see extreme populism and extremism of all types as something which occurs on both the Left and the Right, and I think one only needs to refer to the disaster in Venezuela that is unfolding after the extreme left-wing populism of Hugo Chavez. I draw to the chamber's attention our concerns in that regard.

We also have some reflections in relation to the characterisation of movements such as Brexit. I note that Senator Carr did state that populism in some cases is justified, but movements like Brexit tend to lead one to question whether or not a populist movement is simply an authentic expression of dissatisfaction with the order that's in place that leads to radical change in order to give ultimate expression to the majority will of the people. The question is: when does that validity, when does that authenticity and when does that acceptable expression of democratic will start to transcend into something more to go into the realms of the extreme? That is a debate about an area we could discuss for many, many hours in this chamber, and I don't propose to do so this evening.

I absolutely agree with Senator Carr with respect to the state of social cohesion that we have in this country. I think we can all be proud that we live in a country which does have a great deal of social cohesion. We've demonstrated that over the last 12 very, very difficult months, and we stand in great standing when we look at what has occurred in other countries in that regard.

I would like to touch on a few of the recommendations where we do have a divergence of opinion. I know that Senator Carr is sitting there with bated breath, waiting for my revelations to unfold—maybe not totally bated; some other analogy might be more appropriate! Recommendation 7 states:

The committee recommends that the Australian government investigates options to allow dual citizens to run for, and sit in, the federal parliament.

We recognise that this recommendation is simply calling upon the Australian government to investigate options; however, Senator Henderson and I believe that it is appropriate that, if someone seeks election to this place, they should not have any allegiance other than to Australia. There is a renunciation process which people can go through if they are dual citizens to renounce any allegiance to a foreign power before they seek election to this place. I should note in this respect that 'renunciation' is not the renunciation of their past, of their heritage, of their ethnicity or of their personal history—far from it. It is simply a renunciation of allegiance to a foreign power. That is the view which Senator Henderson and I hold. In stating that position, we have the utmost sympathy to those parliamentarians who were caught up unawares in the dual citizenship debacle of a few years ago.

The other area in which we would like to express some concern with recommendations is in relation to recommendation 9, which states:

The committee recommends that the Australian government works with the Australian Media Alliance, through a co-design process, to develop a national strategy to tackle fake news and misinformation.

We simply say that, for any proposal which seeks to limit or in any way regulate free speech, it must be incumbent on the government to consult extensively and make sure that any such proposal does not trip into the area of stifling free speech, and we make that point in the dissenting report.

Recommendation 15 states:

The committee notes that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recently tabled its report on the 2019 federal election. The committee recommends the Australian government works with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to develop and implement strategies to increase voter enrolment and voter turnout …

We simply note the fact that, as evidenced in its 2018-19 annual report, the Australian Electoral Commission made the following comment in relation to the 2019 federal election:

With the largest ever number of Australians enrolled to vote and a national enrolment rate of 97 per cent, we also saw a large increase in early voting and an increase in turnout for the House of Representatives. At 91.9 per cent, turnout was nearly one per cent higher than at the 2016 federal election.

So there was a higher turnout at the last federal election than there was for the federal election before that. From that perspective, Senator Henderson and I are gratified that many, many Australians—the vast majority—are engaging in the democratic process, as they should.

Finally, recommendation 18 states:

The committee recommends that the Australian government works with academics, national institutions and cultural organisations, and the non-government sector, to develop a long-term national strategy to strengthen Australia's democracy.

We simply say that we consider Australia's democracy to be vibrant, robust and healthy. While we have no issue with the sentiments expressed in this recommendation—far from it—we're not exactly clear what this strategy would mean in practice. As with the vast majority of the report, we certainly agree with the sentiments that underpin it.