Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Hansard source

I take great pleasure in joining the debate on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters: Interim report. I want to say from the outset that we have every right, in this place and throughout our nation, to be very proud of our electoral system and the democracy that it protects. I would say that our system is not broken, but that does not mean that our system can't be improved. The whole point of JSCEM, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, conducting a review of the 2022 federal election is to look at how the election was conducted but also to then offer constructive ideas and practical solutions to any challenges that have been presented, by the community, to us in hearings. People have a great deal of interest in this topic. The committee then provides those recommendations to the government of the day to see where we can find some level of consensus and, where there are areas that are disputed, how we can reach a negotiated outcome. I do say, quite sincerely, that our system isn't broken, but it can certainly be improved, and what it requires is eternal vigilance. In this place, there are excellent members on both sides of this chamber who appreciate and value our democracy above all else.

The fundamental challenge in the conducting of a federal election is to maintain the trust and the confidence of the Australian people, particularly in the outcome. Regardless of who wins, the Australian public must have confidence in the outcome and that their voice is being heard. They may not agree with the result, but they must have trust and confidence in the fact that their vote has been recorded and counted and the winner has been declared. It is a great tribute to this nation that, in the 15 years I've been here, there have been changes of government which have occurred with no violence, with no protest about the outcome and with a seamless transition—despite the fact that we may disagree on policy areas, transitions occur in a manner which does great credit to the Australian people. That doesn't happen by chance; that requires the eternal vigilance of people in this place and of the Australian Electoral Commission in particular. I want to congratulate Australian Electoral Commission senior staff, in particular, for the way they conducted the 2022 election and for the way they were prepared to call out false information when it was circulated, particularly on social media. Contrast our election result—the outcome here in Australia in 2022—with the most recent United States federal election and how that election result in the US was disputed and allegations that the election had been stolen were allowed to ferment online. It resulted in violence, with a siege on Capitol Hill. Contrast that to what occurred here in Australia last year where there was a change of government but no suggestion whatsoever that the result was anything other than fair. The AEC deserves a high degree of credit, and the candidates who participated in the election overwhelmingly deserve credit as well, for working to maintain public confidence and trust in the result.

Although it does have a very boring name, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has an important role, and I congratulate the chair of the committee, the member for Jagajaga, for her careful consideration of the issues and for the report before the chamber today. I do agree entirely with the chair's opening remarks. She said, 'Democracy is best when it's conducted in way that is transparent.' That goes to the heart of the coalition's dissenting report, in relation to this interim report. There is plenty we agree on in the report in terms of how the election was conducted, but the coalition's dissenting report does highlight some areas where there is a level of contention and which I think require further debate in this place and in the broader community.

We have a participatory representative system of government which relies very heavily on people being able to participate in an open and transparent way. The participation of Australians as party members or supporters of their chosen candidate is an important part of our system. People need to be able to participate in this system without fear of retribution, such as the boycotting of small businesses, and that's why our dissenting report on recommendation 4 goes to this issue around participation. We're recommending a new offence of electoral violence or intimidation be added to the Electoral Act. The reason for that recommendation is very clear. We are concerned, and I'm sure other members in this place would be concerned, about the risk—in fact, the reality—of intimidation, harassment or abusive behaviour towards candidates or towards their supporters, whether it be at polling booths or when they're out meeting people in the streets. It's important that people understand, even if you don't agree with anything that candidates putting their names forward are saying, they still have a right to nominate, put their name forward and be judged by the Australian people. So our dissenting report recommendation 4 is all about an offence of electoral violence and harassment of candidates or their supporters.

Similarly, we in the coalition have a concern in relation to the disclosure threshold of $1,000, which is recommended in the interim report. In our view, that is too low. We believe that is too low a figure, and our recommendation is for $8,000 per financial year, which is effectively the sum of all the states and territories. Most of the states and territories have now had significant reform and have a threshold of around $1,000 in many cases. The argument we're making is that disclosure threshold for a federal election, in the order of the sum of all the states and territories, is a more realistic disclosure threshold and would not discourage participation or that risk of secondary boycotting which we are concerned about.

There's another dissenting report recommendation which I think is an important one. It really gets down to the nuts and bolts of how the AEC manages our voting centres. Our recommendation 3 is about limiting the prepoll period. We believe the prepoll period of 12 days is too long. We find that it is an unnecessary burden on candidates and their volunteers, but I also think it's costly for the AEC to maintain those voting centres for such a long period of time. The real risk here, on top of volunteer burden, long nights and security issues for candidates and their supporters, is one the member for Kennedy was referring to. Things can happen in that 12-day period where people are not fully informed when they go to vote. So reducing prepoll voting to a period of time that we're arguing for of one week—maybe with extended hours to accommodate shiftworkers—would give people enough time to still exercise a democratic right in a way which is not too difficult for them, their family or workload but would allow them to be fully informed before they go to vote. We are worried that people are voting too early. It's convenient for them, but they may very well not be fully informed about the issues that are facing the Australian people at that time. So we so think a shorter period for prepoll voting is something that should be considered.

Our proposed recommendation 1 in the dissenting report will be contentious. It's something that we will need to grapple with as a democracy and as a parliament, as we go forward. At what point do those who identify as Independents actually become a party? You yourself, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, standing alone as one person, are clearly an Independent. The point we're trying to make is that once you start gathering as a group, conducting yourselves under a common name and common policy areas, such as the teals, are you then in fact a party? At what point do you become a party and have to be caught up in the same rules that impact the party political system? And it's not an attack on the teals by any stretch; it's more of a conversation about when you actually become a party, as distinct from an Independent. The interim report goes to a much broader conversation around fundraising, around campaign donations, around spending caps.

I want to make just one quick point in the time I have left. The campaign arms war that we feared and continue to fear—which is the pathway the United States has gone down over many years now—is a pathway to be avoided. I think we have general agreement on that point. But we need to be very careful that we don't exaggerate the risk here in Australia. You need only look at the evidence we heard during these hearings in relation to the United Australia Party. The United Australia Party has been criticised for spending in the order of $123 million in the 2020-21 financial year, and that is pointed out as an example of a campaign arms race. But that $123 million met with very little electoral success. The party spent a lot of money but actually didn't change too many votes; they certainly didn't buy the Australian election. The point I'm trying to make is that the campaign arms war is something to be wary of, but let's not exaggerate the risk or the impact. I do not think Australians have had the election bought by any stretch.

But we are right to question whether the money has the potential to distort votes. Big money can come from a variety of sources, but it can also come from unions or other third parties. So I think any reforms we make in this place have to make sure that they catch all the people who might want to make a contribution to the electoral system.

The key principles of the dissenting report from the coalition are clear. We want equal treatment for all political participants. We want fair and open transparent elections. We want to encourage more political participation. And we want to make sure any laws or any changes that we make do not unfairly benefit one candidate over another. Here we are all in the business of winning elections. But the overwhelming majority of MPs I meet want a fair fight. They want clear rules of engagement. They want to ensure that the public retains faith and confidence in the results. And, regardless of whether their team wins, the public want to know that they can be confident that the government is going to govern in their interest. I thank the House.

See this speech in context