Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2025 federal election, together with accompanying documents. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

At the outset in my comments, I take the opportunity to make some comment with respect to my colleague Senator Askew, who thinks that she's escaping this place without anybody, particularly from Tassie, acknowledging her service. I want to not only express my thanks to Wendy for her service to the Liberal Party Tasmania and the country but also congratulate her on all of the things that she's achieved as a part of her time here in the parliament. She is highly respected not only for the work that she does on committees, and that's relevant to what we're going to talk about here tonight, but also as our whip, the relationships that she has around and across the chamber. We all rely on our whips to be able to get things done in this place, to make this place work. I just want to place on record my sincere thanks and appreciation for having had the opportunity to share some time in this place, which is a very special place for us all, with Senator Askew as a colleague. And that really does segue nicely into what I would like to say with respect to this inquiry into the conduct of the 2025 election.

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

Senator Ayres?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) | Link to this | Hansard source

I sense Senator Colbeck is about to move into another subject area. I just wanted to, on the reflections that he made about the retirement of Senator Askew, associate the government with his remarks and wish her the very best. This chamber is not a majority chamber, and the more that we do in here to establish modes of cooperation and behaviour that support this Senate discharging its function is in the interests of all of us and Australia's democracy. I wanted to make that point before I sense Senator Colbeck moves to a more partisan set of comments that would make it more difficult for me. So thank you for that indulgence. Senator Askew thinks she's dodged people saying nice things about her. I just wanted to make sure she didn't.

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

Well, thank you, Senator Ayres. I listened very closely to your contribution. It wasn't a point of order but it was on indulgence. Certainly, I think the Senate chamber is grateful for those comments. Senator Colbeck.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | 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)

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I see the Liberal Party's pushback about some of the moves that have been taken by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to actually look behind what happened with the Exclusive Brethren in the last federal election. I see the resistance and I see the pushback suggesting that somehow this is about a religion. Well, it's actually about protecting politics. No-one should be dragged into politics because of their religion, but no-one can use their religion or politically organise through their religion to avoid scrutiny—to avoid coming and saying what their role was in the last federal election or in other electoral engagements.

To be clear, I recall going to the Parramatta polling booth on polling day in the last federal election. I turned up at the main booth in the centre of Parramatta, and there were maybe 50—or maybe more—Liberal Party volunteers all dressed in the same brand-new shirts and brand-new shorts. All bar a handful were men in brand-new construction boots they'd just bought and all were aged about 30. They were all being very aggressive on the polling booth. I've never seen anything quite like it. There were a group of Labor volunteers, and they were their usual mix, and there was a group of Greens volunteers and some Independents, but there was this cohort all dressed in the same, basically brand-new outfits and all basically of the same age. They were overwhelmingly male and being incredibly aggressive. I wondered what the hell was going on. We found out later, when it became clear that they were sent in there by the Exclusive Brethren to push for one political candidate, for the Liberal Party. And it turned out it was happening across the board.

I know that the Liberal Party don't want this investigated, and maybe they don't want investigated the funds that go from organisations like that to the Liberal Party. And do you want to know what I think the Liberal Party also don't want investigated? They are desperately unhappy, no doubt, that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption has just begun a fresh investigation into funds that were sent to the New South Wales Liberal Party from Catholic schools in breach of disclosure obligations and in breach of electoral laws in New South Wales. There's a pattern developing here, and running cover on the basis that this is about religion totally misses the point. This is about ensuring our democracies are not undermined by activities that are not out in the open, by funding that's not lawful and by this kind of undermining and attacks and third-party attacks. Another reason, no doubt, that the Exclusive Brethren don't want to turn up to JSCEM, and why the Liberal Party is running cover for them, is the $700,000 they gave to Advance in the last election campaign to run the Liberal Party's dirty business for them. No wonder the Liberal Party wants to protect that flow of money. No wonder they don't want the scrutiny. No doubt they're going to desperately do what they can to hide from the New South Wales ICAC inquiry.

I want to be clear: no-one should be dragged into politics because of their religion, but anyone who uses their religion to push their political barrow to feed money to a political party needs to come under scrutiny—and no-one should hide from it.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I've been in this place for coming on nine years, and I spent 7½ years before that as a political staffer involved in helping to write many, many reports, and I have never seen—and I use that word again to those opposite—such an egregious use of the committee process as this one. The attack upon Australians who are seeking to exercise their legitimate rights is an absolute disgrace. Let me give you a couple of examples of why.

I've been around for a while. Sadly, I can remember sitting on a polling booth as a five-year-old with my dad handing out how to vote cards, and I hate to think of the hundreds and hundreds of polling booths I have attended since that time. Australians are generally very good. They're very well behaved. There have been a few incidents over those years, and I'll tell you what: the incidents that have stuck with me and the ones that that made me feel uncomfortable were engendered either by the microparties—the fringe parties who, quite frankly, sit at that end of the chamber—or by union thugs. They are the only times that I have felt threatened or disrespected at a polling place in 50 years of sitting on polling booths.

The other point I want to make is this: part of the recommendations of this report—which Senator Colbeck went through in more detail; I won't go through it all, and I didn't sit on the inquiry itself—is that you have to register to be a polling booth worker, a volunteer. Let's think about that for a moment. I'll take you back a couple of years to the Voice referendum. I was at a small Western Australian primary school handing out proudly for the 'No' campaign, and a Noongar man, a father at that school, came up to me and said, 'Give me some of those; I want to hand those out as well.' He stood there with me for an hour, handing out. Do you think there is any reason why perhaps he would feel uncomfortable about registering that position before he decided to take that stance? Of course there would be. People should not have to register their position to exercise their democratic freedoms in this country. This is a despicable, disgraceful report.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm also pretty disgusted with the process that we've seen here, a one-eyed process. I think we've heard it described as hyperpartisan. Even just reading the chair's foreword on this, I saw the words, 'Democracy was under assault.' We had people show up in droves to participate in our democratic election. It was under assault! The foreword continues:

… the growing threat of aggressive third party involvement has shaken the foundations of the voting process … assault on democracy … institutionalised intimidation.

Well, do you know what I feel about this report that's been handed down by the chair, Jerome Laxale? I feel like this is intimidation to people in our society. I feel like this is intimidating for this institution, the Brethren. How is that okay? When it comes to the next election, how do you think they're going to feel about coming and participating in our democracy now that this witch-hunt—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't vote.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that is an absolute lie. I will take that interjection from Senator Whish-Wilson.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, we'll have some order, thank you. I will—

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I spoke to some. That is a lie.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, resume your seat. We will continue this debate in an orderly fashion, and hurling abuse and names at each other across the chamber is really not helping. Senator Collins, please continue.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to bring it back to another statement that we have in here:

… we shouldn't fear applying remedy when needed.

Well, that just sounds like a government that wants more control over the democratic process.

We heard from Senator Shoebridge that the Brethren didn't want to appear. Well, five times they offered to appear, so I just want to put that on the record.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Including today.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Including today. There were no progressive-leaning entities that were at this inquiry, and it only leads us to the conclusion that this was a religiously motivated witch-hunt.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Well, how else do you see it? Why don't we have the unions come forward? Why is it just one particular—okay, I will give you an example. I spent two weeks on Jerome Laxale's prepoll—the MP for Bennelong. His Labor volunteers, with Labor shirts on, were haranguing me: 'What religion are they? Tell me.' I said, 'What business is it of yours?' They asked, 'What religion?' I said, 'It is absolutely not your right to ask that.' And they persevered, 'They're Brethren, aren't they?' What does it matter? They're there to participate in a democratic process.

And I will say that, in my two weeks, yes, tensions were high—in a two-week prepoll where you have hundreds upon hundreds of people turning up, frustrated with the government, to cast their vote. It was like election day every day. If you want to sort that problem out, shorten prepoll. It's a very easy fix. There's no need to have election day every day for two weeks in a row.

We had a person turn up to our booth who was wielding a knife. They went to three booths in the area wielding a knife, coming at volunteers there to participate in democracy and people there to cast their vote. I'll tell you who it was that protected all of us, all of the constituents. It was the Brethren. And my experience over those two weeks was that they were respectful, and I will take the opportunity to put on the record—it's very interesting that the Greens aren't bothering to listen to this, because this is my evidence and my contribution.

My experience on Jerome Laxale's booth was that there were videos taken that were set up. There was a person who threw themselves in front of a car. I thought that person had fainted. I went to help her. The Brethren came to help—give her food, water, a chair. She tried to blame it on us.

There are other instances that I will not go into today, because I just don't think that's helpful. But I want to put on the record that this inquiry was totally one sided. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.