Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Assurance of Senate Counting) Bill 2021. This bill does two main things. Firstly, it requires the AEC to commission an audit and risk management assessment of the counting and scrutiny software used in a Senate election. It also amends the way ties between candidates in Senate elections are to be resolved.

This bill has the very laudable aim of enhancing the transparency and integrity of our election-counting systems, and this is an important objective. We know, and we should be proud of the fact, that we have one of the best electoral systems in the world. The independent Australian Electoral Commission operates with the utmost integrity and rigour to ensure a fair and accurate election result in which all Australians can be confident.

Nevertheless, there will always, unfortunately, be detractors and those who question the results, even when there's not a shred of evidence of anything but an accurate and transparent outcome. We need to recognise this, respond to it, and do all we can to stand up for trust and confidence in our electoral and democratic institutions and processes, in an environment where these have been increasingly under threat around the world, driven in part by the diffusion of misinformation and disinformation. It's the Australian Labor Party's view that electoral reform should always be done in a considered, thoughtful and bipartisan manner and that the end goal of all reform should be the betterment of our democratic system as a whole. We remain concerned about the messaging coming from some in this place that is designed to cast doubts on the integrity of our electoral system and, indeed, undermine our democracy.

Amongst the nine electoral amendment bills introduced or debated in this session of parliament, the government has left the most important, a bill to prepare for elections in times of emergency situations, to the last. That is a bill that is actually needed, as we can see from the circumstances we are confronting right now, and which has bipartisan support. It is a bill which was recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following a reference from the Minister for Finance well over a year ago. Once again, we see wrong priorities from a tired and increasingly desperate government that can't distinguish between the national interest and its political interests, led by a prime minister who is unfailingly only concerned with himself. On what could still be, potentially, the second-last sitting day of this parliament, the Prime Minister has only just listed the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Contingency Measures) Bill 2021 for debate. Ensuring we can have safe elections during major COVID-19 outbreaks, bushfires and floods, such as we are seeing in New South Wales and Queensland just this week, must be our highest priority, not an afterthought.

Turning to the bill which is before the House, it is important to note that the Australian Electoral Commission already has a robust system for assurance and transparency of its software systems. However, we on this side of the House are satisfied that this bill will assist in providing increased confidence to the voting public and, indeed, to parties and candidates. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Assurance of Senate Counting) Bill requires the AEC to obtain, prior to the next election, an independent security risk assessment of the computer systems used to scrutinise the Senate count. This includes assessment of the software used to scan, store and count votes. The person or body tasked with this assessment must be accredited by the Australian Signals Directorate and must provide a report to the AEC on their findings. The AEC must then publish this report on its website. This assessment must be conducted prior to each federal election.

In addition, from 1 January 2023, the AEC must arrange an independent assessment of whether the counting software for a Senate election distributes preferences and elects candidates in accordance with the Electoral Act. The AEC must publish a statement on its website stating whether the accuracy of the accounting software is assured to the appropriate standard.

The Electoral Commissioner will then be required to verify, within seven days of an election, that the AEC's using the assured version of the counting software. If there are any variations required of the software, the Electoral Commissioner must advise of these variations and the reason for them within seven days of the return of the writs.

The bill also requires that a ballot-sampling process be undertaken. The AEC must arrange for statistically significant samples of ballot papers to be checked throughout the scrutiny of votes to ensure that the electronic data captured and used in the counting of votes reflects the physical data that is recorded on the ballot papers. At least 5,000 Senate ballot papers must be checked, or 1,000 if it is a standalone Senate election. The ballot process that I'm talking about now may be inspected by scrutineers. The Electoral Commissioner will be required to publish the methodology used for the sampling and the process used for the reconciling of preferences prior to the election. Within 14 days after the return of the writs, the Electoral Commissioner must publish a statement setting out the results of the ballot-sampling process. Should any irregularities be identified, there would be time for an election result to be contested in the Court of Disputed Returns, which, of course, must be done within 40 days of the return of the writs.

We know from the extensive evidence that the Electoral Commissioner has provided to both the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the Senate during estimates hearings that the AEC already has robust systems in place to ensure the integrity of its systems. The AEC already works with national cybersecurity agencies to ensure the integrity of its systems and, indeed, its compliance with the Commonwealth cybersecurity guidelines. There have been multiple independent audits and testing of the AEC's counting and distribution of preference software, which have found no issues with the integrity of the vote count.

Apart from the assurance of electronic counting systems, we should not forget the important safeguards that scrutineers provide. Scrutineers can view and challenge the count, including the scanning of ballot papers and the processing of all digital ballot paper images. The fact that this process is performed in full view of scrutineers should provide significant assurance to voters, candidates and, indeed, the wider Australian community.

In a further effort for transparency, the seat-by-seat results of our elections are published on the AEC's virtual tally room. This allows anyone to view the results in any seat and to verify the results. To date, this has been at the initiative of the AEC, who have been doing this to provide public assurance and greater transparency of the process. This bill codifies this existing practice by the AEC of publishing preference data, including the distribution of preferences, on the AEC's virtual tally room.

Another transparency initiative that the AEC already uses is to outline on its website the integrity and assurance measures that the AEC has in place with regard to its computer systems. Prior to each election, the Easy Count Senate system, the ballot paper reconciliation system and the Senate scanning solution all go through testing. They are tested individually, and they are also tested in conjunction with each other to ensure that all the systems work together. Product verification testing also occurs after the close of nominations and before polling day to ensure the scanners and templates of each ballot paper are correctly set up. Then, after the election, the systems are tested again to make sure they worked correctly.

We have confidence in the independence of the Australian Electoral Commission and in the integrity of their systems. This bill does not appear to require much more than processes that are already in place. Nevertheless, if this bill will provide greater assurances and put paid to some of the, quite frankly, ridiculous conspiracy theories that float around, we in Labor are very happy to provide our support for the bill and the measures it contains. We hope as we do so that government members now provide consistent support for our independent Australian Electoral Commission and for the integrity of our electoral systems.

The bill also aligns the process for determining ties in a Senate count with the process used for this House. Instead of the Australian electoral officer for the state having a casting vote in the rare circumstance where there is a tie in the distribution of preferences, the electoral officer will have to determine the order of standing by lot. This is a reasonable amendment and provides a greater degree of certainty than the current provisions.

The bill also provides that the scrutineer observing the computerised scrutiny for a Senate election may ask for access to an original ballot paper to dispute formality. This codifies existing practice with scrutiny for the Senate count in South Australia in 2016 and also in 2019. Multiple requests that are deemed to be unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious may be refused if they would unreasonably delay the scrutiny. This is to ensure that the start of the elected senator's term on 1 July—which is, of course, a requirement of our Constitution—is not put at risk.

The measures in this bill will increase public confidence in our democratic systems; however, there is, of course, much more to be done.

To that end, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

  (1) notes that the explanatory memorandum states that the bill's intention is to strengthen the integrity of Australia's electoral system;

  (2) notes that Australia's electoral system would be further strengthened by;

     (a) lowering the disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 so political donations are transparent for all to see;

     (b) requiring real time disclosure of political donations;

     (c) reforming electoral expenditure laws;

     (d) providing more resources to the AEC to increase enrolment and turnout;

     (e) addressing the spread of dangerous misinformation and disinformation;

     (f) legislating for a powerful and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission;

     (g) making laws to prevent governments from pork-barrelling in marginal held seats; and

     (h) requiring parliamentarians to disclose secret donations; and

  (3) calls on the Government to implement these electoral integrity measures that would make a real difference to improving public confidence in our democracy".

An Albanese Labor government would continue the reforms that started with the Hawke government to enhance the integrity of our democratic processes. It was a Labor government that was the first to legislate the transparency of political donations, requiring all donations over $1,000 to be publicly disclosed. We remember that it was John Howard who jacked this up to $10,000 and then also linked it to inflation, causing the threshold to blow out to the current $14,500. We will, in government, reduce the disclosure threshold to $1,000 and remove the link to CPI.

We will also require that all donations be disclosed within seven days so people know who is donating to political parties, how much and when, and will not have to wait up to 19 months to find out, as they do currently. In fact, we have two bills before the Senate right now to do just that. But the government won't vote for them because they don't want people to know who is donating to the Liberal Party or the National Party. Otherwise, people would have found out about the $75,000 donation Clive Palmer made to the National Party before the last election instead of after they had already voted.

This government doesn't care about transparency and accountability. If it did it would have at least agreed to debate the member for Indi's bill for a national integrity commission, and the Prime Minister would not have summoned the member for Bass to his office to reprimand her for wanting action on a 1,000-day-old promise of his government—a promise fundamental to restoring trust in politics—to introduce a real national integrity commission. I note the member the Dawson received no such summons, despite all the damage he has done and continues to do to the state of our democracy, including in this very chamber.

The fact is: the Morrison-Joyce government does not care about the state of our democracy. The government doesn't care about transparency and accountability. Otherwise, it wouldn't be trying to ram through six electoral bills in the final two sitting weeks of the year. This isn't the way to make laws in this country, particularly those that go to how our democratic systems function.

If the government really cared about the integrity of our electoral system, it wouldn't have cut funding to the AEC. Last week Australia achieved a record enrolment level, with 17 million Australians enrolled to vote at the next election. But, despite the more than 500,000 additional voters added to the roll since the last election, the funding this government has provided to the AEC for the next election is actually lower than that for the last one, in 2019. That's before we get to some of the challenges that the global pandemic may impose on the conduct of this election. This diminishes the commission's capacity to perform vital functions, including public education campaigns on political disinformation and driving increases to voter enrolment and turnout.

Just 79.3 per cent of Indigenous Australians are enrolled to vote nationally, compared to an overall enrolment rate of 96.1 per cent. This is a shocking figure. It's a shocking figure for anyone who cares about our democracy. And it gets worse; the situation is even worse in the Northern Territory, with an Indigenous enrolment rate there of 69.6 per cent—less than 70 per cent. So much more needs to be done to address this democratic deficit, including investigating how people living in remote communities can be added to the roll through the Federal Direct Enrolment and Update program. But, without appropriate funding, the AEC is hampered in its mission to ensure every eligible voter has the ability to exercise their right to vote. But all this Prime Minister cares about is winning the next election, and he takes a win-at-all-costs approach.

That's his focus. And, as we see from the legislative agenda—the threadbare legislative agenda—that's before the House today and across this sitting fortnight, it's his sole focus. He knows that Australians have worked him out, that they know he has nothing to say to them about the future and no record worth speaking of, that he only stands for himself and that he is only concerned to do whatever it takes to cling to power. He doesn't care about the truth. He will say anything to win, even telling outright lies, about a holiday to Hawaii while Australia burned, to the French President, about electric vehicles, when he's damned by his own words.

Australia deserves so much better than this. It's only an Albanese Labor government that will provide transparency and accountability in government, and it's only the Labor Party that will always stand up for democracy, for defending and strengthening our democratic institutions, because on this side of the House we trust Australians, and we are prepared to trust their judgement.

See this speech in context