Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

And can I say, Senator Ayres, I would prefer that we had more comments like that across the chamber rather than some of the things that I feel the need to say today, because I'm really disappointed that I have to make the comments that I'm going to make today with respect to the conduct of this inquiry. You are right that we need to work together more across this chamber, particularly with respect to the work of this committee, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which holds as its responsibility the way that we manage and conduct elections in this place.

We are a very lucky country. We have a fantastic electoral system. We have a very highly regarded electoral commission. Everything that we do should be in terms of maintaining a congenial election process. We know that they're hard fought. We have those battles across the chamber. But there have been a couple of what I think are unfortunate and disappointing circumstances that have occurred so far in the conduct of this inquiry. I look forward to the rest of it. There are some important matters that we have to consider in this inquiry that go to the way that we conduct our elections and the confidence that the Australian people have in that process. It is extremely important that we do that.

The first point that I want to make, and it's a key area of consideration for the interim report, is about behaviour at polling booths. I have to say that I was really disappointed in the way that some parts of this inquiry were run. From my perspective, there has been an agenda against a particular faith in this country. I think it's extraordinary that a committee of this parliament conducting an inquiry into the election would basically be run as a vendetta against a particular faith. We've got a royal commission into antisemitism going on in Sydney right now. We don't need to add those sorts of things into our party-political process. I don't think it's appropriate that I should be put in a situation where somebody might say to me that I need to understand the faith of somebody who's supporting me as a volunteer in an election. That's the way that some of this has occurred.

I was very distressed last week when I felt the need to put out a press release rebuking a comment from the committee that two groups, the Plymouth Brethren and Advance, might be subpoenaed to appear before the committee when neither of those organisations had shown any indication that they didn't want to come. In fact, they had said they wanted to come. It was a very unfortunate circumstance, and some of that came through in the conduct of the hearing. In fact, in one circumstance, during what was purported to be a public participation element of the committee, one member of parliament had his entire staff come to give evidence. That member is also a member of the committee. I think it's just really unfortunate that what was purported to be a public comment section was used in the wrong way, in my view. I won't put any names on it. I don't need to. I want to be able to work my way through the rest of this inquiry in a congenial manner, in the way that Senator Ayres described just a moment ago.

Clearly, the standard of behaviour at polling booths is important. It's important for all of us and, quite frankly, it's a reflection on us. I know that, when I go to a polling booth, I make a point of going to everybody who's a poll booth worker and saying hello, shaking their hand, introducing myself and engaging with them in a friendly and polite way. To be frank, when everybody's happy on the polling booth, it's a way more enjoyable experience. Do we have political differences? Of course we do. But we want elections to be conducted in a congenial way. That's the way I enjoy election day.

What's being proposed by the majority report is a process of registering volunteers and a whole series of bureaucratic processes that go off that, like creating additional zones around polling booths and prohibiting or limiting the number of people or number of signs. I don't think that's appropriate, and I don't think it actually properly reflects the way that our Constitution supports political freedoms in this country. I think it's a really retrograde step that's being proposed. That's why the coalition doesn't support those measures. It doesn't take away in any way from my thought process around us taking responsibility as members of parliament and political parties, including third parties, for the way that our volunteers behave. I think that's a vitally important part of what we do. But I don't think creating a whole new bureaucracy and then asking the Electoral Commission to oversee it is an appropriate thing to do, and I don't think it's what the Electoral Commission want either. As I've said before, the Electoral Commission is highly regarded, and we should be thankful for that. I don't think we should be making them judge, jury and executioner on things that become political because, in my view, that will taint that independence and reputation that they have.

There are some other things in the report that I think are really important. The access to public access terminals by some parties is, I think, a real problem and is being used for things that aren't right. It's a concern of the Electoral Commission too. So we support the recommendation in relation to that.

The accessibility of polling places is very important for everybody. There's been a lot of commentary around that, and I think that's important. So are authorisations. The first recommendation of the report talks about the transparency of who's participating in the electoral process. We don't necessarily completely support that recommendation as it's written, but we're very happy to work with the government and all other parties to make sure that people understand properly who's participating in the electoral process. It is extremely important that it's open, that it's transparent and that people understand who's saying what.

In that context, there's one other matter that's noted in the dissenting report that the committee needs to deal with. At the beginning of the process, we, by agreement, pass a couple of resolutions with respect to the management of submissions to the committee. The first we pass is fine. It's about dealing with certain matters perhaps even internal to parties. But the one that I think is problematic for us all at this point in time and must be fixed by the committee is the one that relates to the way that redactions are made to submissions. We had a ridiculous situation where the Liberal Party submission to JSCEM had the Liberal Party name redacted from it because of the resolution that we passed. We have to fix that. We had members of parliament who had their names redacted from their own submissions. We need to fix that because it is actually chilling the process of the committee investigating the inquiry properly. We need to fix that as part of the work of the committee going forward so that submissions can be properly published openly and transparently and the Australian people can understand properly the very important work that this committee is doing on their behalf.

(Quorum formed)