James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the three bills that we're debating together this morning: the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022.

I'd like to start by commending Assistant Minister Morton for the work that he's done not only on these three matters but on a whole raft of electoral reform over the last few months. I've spoken on a number of these bills. I'm very proud to serve on the electoral matters committee, and some of the matters that have come before us to be legislated have come from that committee. Others have been born out of the necessities of dealing with potential disruptions of future elections because of COVID et cetera. I think the assistant minister has done an excellent job in identifying a number of loopholes, like the ones I'm about to touch on in this debate, that we might have sought to address some time ago if there had been higher awareness of those issues. I commend the assistant minister for his diligence there.

I'd also like to commend the Australian Electoral Commission. Whenever we've debated changes to the electoral act and I've spoken on them, I've always taken the opportunity to commend them and their professionalism—Commissioner Rogers and his entire team. Again, we have them in regularly to give evidence to the electoral matters committee. I think they do a fantastic job. I've listened to some of the other contributions to this debate, and it's very pleasing to hear the unity of commendation for the integrity of elections that we conduct in this country. Sometimes we don't like the results, but that's never been because there are questions about the AEC's professionalism and integrity and the due diligence with which they conduct our elections. I think that in every election that's ever been held in this country, even though we sometimes do and sometimes don't like the results, no-one has ever suggested that the actual conduct of the election—the counting of the votes and the returning of the results—was anything but to the highest standards. That reflects very well on the AEC, and I know that they're regarded very highly internationally as well. So, as we always seek to reform our electoral laws, we're very lucky to know that, whatever changes we make, they're going to be implemented effectively, efficiently and with exceptional impartiality by our Electoral Commission. We're very lucky to not have any concerns about that.

There are three bills that we're debating together, and they're all examples of why it's important to continuously update our electoral laws and always look for opportunities to ensure that, as technology changes and moves forward, as different tactics may or may not be used in election campaigns, we're always learning about ways to keep robust defences and protections in place for our democracy so that the Australian people decide who their government is and no-one other than the Australian people can influence that. When we are out there on the battlefield that democracy is, it's important that we argue forcefully and have these debates about where we want to take the future of our country, and it's healthy that we scrutinise each other, but it's also important that there are some fundamental rules in place so that we're always having fair fights. Even though sometimes we might not like what the other side has to say about a policy that we've got, it's fair enough and it's part of free speech that they can make criticisms based on their judgement of what we're doing, and we get to do the same in return. That's fair, but we don't want anything unfair and we don't want any unfair influence.

There are three elements that all speakers have mentioned, so I'll just again do the same and perhaps deal with them in three contributions. The first is spectacularly obvious and sensible, and I note that everyone has spoken in favour of it: simplifying the authorisation requirements that we have for political materials and political advertisements. My whole life—and, I'm sure, for most of the time since Federation—we've had these requirements that, when you've got something to say in an election campaign, you've got to take responsibility for it.

Where there is a billboard, a slogan, an advertisement or a pamphlet that's being handed out—or, in more recent times, television and radio commercials and now, of course, social media, the digital world et cetera, as well as phone calls and text messages—there's a requirement that, if someone's saying something in our democracy and seeking to influence the outcome of an election, they have to identify that they have authored the message and they have to take responsibility for it. That's so that, if, for example, there were something that breached the electoral act, was defamatory or breached other laws in any way, shape or form, there would be a person held responsible for that. With political parties, that tends to be our campaign directors. The Independents are a bit more opaque, and we've had to look more closely at them in recent times to make sure they comply with the same rules that we do, as political parties. Nonetheless, if something is put out to influence an election—to spruik for a candidate, attack another candidate et cetera—that needs to be authorised. You have to know that, if someone has said the wrong thing in an advertisement, they can be found and held to account for that, most often by the Electoral Commission but sometimes, potentially, through the courts.

What we're doing here is making that much more straightforward in a modern world where it's very easy to use the internet to find out information about an authorised piece of material. Clearly, as other speakers have said, we're just simplifying what the written and spoken words need to be. At the moment, I'm a member of 'the Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)'. If I put something out and authorise it as 'the Liberal Party', I think it's completely reasonable that people know where to find me, even though I didn't put the full name of the legal entity in place. So, if I authorise something as 'James Stevens for the Liberal Party, Adelaide', I don't think in the modern world people would struggle to find and track down who James Stevens was and hold me to account for something that I'd put out, seeking to influence an election. In some ways, it might even make it easier because, of course, legal names can often be confusing and can potentially misdirect people from the true source of the messaging. When our names are on the ballot paper, you already have the short and simple descriptor. When I'm on the ballot, there's my name and then it just says 'Liberal Party'. It doesn't have the full legal name of the party. You can have that shortened version. We're simply allowing that to be the case for authorisations as well. I think it's common sense, and I think everyone has spoken in support of it, so I commend that initiative to the House.

The second measure, of course, is something that's temporary and will sunset in December this year. I'm referring to the measures to expand the access to telephone voting to address the risk of people not being able to cast their ballot at the upcoming federal election because they may find themselves in a situation we couldn't have envisaged the last time we went to the polls. With the challenges related to coronavirus, someone might be in a position where they were intent on voting on election day and, adjacent to election day, either they test positive to COVID or they meet the definition of a close contact of a COVID case. That puts them in a conflicted position. As much as we require them to attend and vote on polling day, if they haven't already prepolled or lodged a postal ballot, equally, the state or territory health advice may be such that, were they to proceed to carry out their requirement and right to vote, they would be in breach of a health directive. Without getting into constitutional questions about which of the two would prevail, I think this provides a very straightforward solution for people's confusion if they find themselves in that circumstance. We know that postal votes are delayed: if you happen to be within a couple of days of an election, it would be impossible to apply for and receive it in time to adequately fill it out and return it under all of the various time lines that are required for a postal vote to be valid. So, for a variety of reasons, it makes sense to give people access to telephone voting. It's a system that's already used for the vision impaired and for people in some other categories— I know if you're in Antarctica, it's a way that you can vote—and now this will be expanded to a larger cohort of people. And, as I say, the suggestion is very clearly that this will have a sunset provision. It's not something we want to have permanently in our system, but it's something that we need to have, to manage the risk of people being disenfranchised on election day because they have either tested positive or met the definition of a close contact of someone with COVID and have a restricted ability to attend a polling booth to vote, as they otherwise would have. I think that's very straightforward, too.

The third element, of course, is a loophole that I'm sure we all would have happily addressed at the first opportunity. It's now been identified and we're, sensibly, dealing with it now—that is, the ability for foreign entities and foreign natural people to have any form of ability to engage in and influence our elections. We've already made some changes over the years and, in fact, late last year, to ensure that all categories—not just political parties but people who are running as Independents et cetera; the definition has expanded to confirm that it covered them—are prohibited from receiving political donations from a foreign entity or a foreign citizen in our elections. That's forbidden, quite rightly, too. We always want to make sure that our elections are only influenced by Australians.

I'm a staunch supporter and defender of the right of people to provide financial contributions to the political process. It's an important part of people's right to free speech and their right to support an outcome of ideas and an approach to running this country that they support. You can do that by volunteering and stuffing things in letterboxes, knocking on doors, making phone calls or handing out how-to-vote cards on election day, and you can, equally, do it by providing financial support to do the same sort of electioneering. That can happen through financial investment as much as human resource investment. But it's vitally important that that remains exclusively the domain and purview of Australians. We never want any risk of interference from foreign sources—wherever that might come from—engaging in and seeking to influence the outcome of Australia's democratic processes, because we know that anyone from outside this country who is wanting to influence the government of this country doesn't have Australia's best interests at heart. They have their own best interests at heart.

I'm not interested in interfering in the democratic processes, or non-democratic processes, depending on the nation, or in how they choose their leaders or how they determine their future. And it's equally vitally important that we don't allow that to occur in this country. Already, of course, we have the prohibition on donations to political candidates, political parties et cetera. But there is, evidently, a loophole that would allow some direct influence from foreign sources, particularly through issues-based campaigns where, at the moment, it is not technically illegal or a breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act for someone to, potentially, engage with their own money directly in advertising or in distributing messaging or other forms of communications material to seek to influence—particularly through some of the sort of grey areas of our democratic processes—the outcomes of elections. And we could speculate about all the different forms that could potentially take. I won't digress into that now, because I think the simple point is that, no matter what the example is, we don't want it in this country.

We weren't aware that the capacity for that to occur existed within our electoral laws, necessarily, in the past, but, now that we are, we're taking the opportunity to rectify that, or provide an enhanced set of protections, so that any avenue whatsoever for foreign interference in elections, in perpetuity into the future, will be very clearly a breach of the electoral act—a crime in this nation—and that serves to protect our democracy from that influence. Just in finishing, it's a reminder of how vital it is that, in every term of parliament, we look to opportunities to keep improving the robustness of our democracy.

I may or may not have the honour to serve in this chamber in the next term of parliament. In the last few sitting weeks of this parliament, this may be the last suite of electoral amendments that pass through this parliament. But, whomever is serving in the next parliament, it is vital that they're always reviewing and looking at the most recent election, as the electoral matters committee does after every election, and looking at new technologies and new avenues to influence and seek to communicate political messaging and persuasive political material. We know that technology and other things are always going to continue to provide new risk points for that, and we've got to make sure we're always just as robust in responding. I think we've done that this term with a whole range of measures that have been legislated through this parliament. I know we're doing everything we can to ensure that the coming election will be just as robust, if not the most robust we've ever had. It's this sort of reform that makes sure that everyone in this chamber is here legitimately and is legitimately representing the people of Australia and making decisions in our best interests. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context