Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

I rise today to introduce the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Protect the Eureka Rag) Bill 2016, an important bill, not only for the electorate of Ballarat but for across the nation.

This bill proposes an amendment to the Electoral Act in relation to logos used by political parties, and for related purposes.

From the outset I will say that this bill is not just about the Eureka flag—it is about making sure that any logo and symbol cannot be appropriated by any one political party without adequate consideration of their historical, and cultural significance.

The Eureka flag has particular significance in my electorate of Ballarat.

The Eureka flag is the iconic symbol of our great city and region that I have the honour to represent.

We see ourselves in Ballarat very much as the custodians, not only of the flag itself—it sits with the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka—but also of its history.

It is a symbol of the fight for justice on the goldfields and, by extension, has long represented the campaigns of working people in Australia.

In Ballarat we want people to see the Eureka flag and understand its place in our history and in our democratic traditions. The events of 3 December 1854 were part of a significant political and social movement that developed across the world. While the battle itself was over very quickly it had huge political ramifications that are the underpinnings of our democracy today—no taxation without representation, working men's suffrage, and eventually women's.

The Eureka flag of course is used by many groups, not just in my electorate but across the country, as we celebrate and honour the democratic traditions and fights of our past. It is often seen as a symbol of protest both on the right and the left and we in Ballarat welcome that. I may not always agree with the views about any one group's use of it but it is part of the beauty of this flag and the democratic traditions that it represents that any debate about the flag always excites great passions and great disagreements.

But the recent registration of the Eureka flag as the party political logo of an extremist, right-wing organisations is, frankly, a step too far. Its attempt to use the flag to promote agendas which are a complete contradiction of what the great flag represents—our democratic tradition of debate—is not something that should pass without note.

Australia F irst Party and the A ustralian E lectoral C ommission

Most recently, the use of the Eureka flag has been highlighted by the approval of the New South Wales branch of the Australia First Party to register the flag as their official logo.

On October 14 the delegate of the Australian Electoral Commission approved an application by Australia First New South Wales for a party logo which includes the Eureka flag.

This approval was made under the existing provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Despite legitimate objections the AEC had no choice but to approve the application.

Given the outcome of this consideration by the Electoral Commission it is clear that there needs to be changes in the law and the way it is applied.

Importantly, as I said, this is not just a bill about this decision or about the Eureka flag itself.

The decision in relation to the Eureka flag has exposed a deficiency in the Commonwealth Electoral Act which I believe must be addressed.

It is the intent of this bill to address this deficiency.

Unfortunately, the AEC is not able to consider the historical or cultural context of any flag or symbol when it is considering approval of political logos. This bill gives the AEC that power.

I believe that it does need to be able to consider whether a political flag or symbol proposed by a certain party political logo is consistent with the cultural and historical relevance of that flag or that symbol. I am not saying that it should be banned, but that the AEC in fact needs to take that into consideration.

The history and cultural context of the flag

Before I go into the specifics of the bill I would like to further establish what is meant by the historical and cultural context.

I should also point out that the City of Ballarat is seriously concerned to ensure the appropriate use of the Eureka flag, and that it was one of the objectors to the original application.

The Ballarat Regional Trades and Labour Council also strongly objected to Australia First's logo application.

One of the most compelling submissions came from the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka, which is where the flag is housed.

The original flag of the Southern Cross—the Eureka flag—is held by MADE under an arrangement involving governments, the City of Ballarat council, the Art Gallery of Ballarat and the family of Trooper King.

Trooper King is no relation of mine, but of course notoriously tore the flag down and bayonetted the flag at the original Eureka Stockade. Trooper King's family held the flag in its custody and originally loaned the flag to the city in the late 19th century through the art gallery. It was really not seen on public display until the 1970s, and I would say that it was poorly treated.

In its submission to the Electoral Commission, MADE argued that:

The Eureka Stockade is one of only three civil uprisings which saw the government actually turn its troops on its own citizens: one in New South Wales; one in the Northern Territory—it was not the Northern Territory at that stage; and, of course, in Ballarat. And each one of those uprisings has given rise to some of the democratic traditions that we see today.

In Ballarat, when people actually see the flag we want them to think about our democracy and think about its traditions. We do not necessarily want them, when they are going into a polling booth, to think about the sorts of values that Australia First espouses.

The historical and cultural value and symbol of something like the flag or any other symbol or flag must be considered when you are considering allowing a political party to use it solely as its logo.

This is not to say that it cannot be used—but that its rich history and symbolism must be taken into consideration when determining its registration.

The Bill

Now to the specifics of this bill.

According to its statement of reasons when approving the Australia First application to include the Eureka flag on its logo, the AEC said it had, 'No discretion to consider historical and cultural claims regarding the use of the Eureka flag'.

This immediately exposes, unfortunately, a flaw in the legislation.

It was only able to evaluate the use of the flag against the existing criteria in section 129A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, such as whether the Australia First logo was obscene or could cause confusion between political parties.

This bill will add the historical and cultural context of flags and other symbols as a criterion under section 129A.

This will allow the AEC to consider whether the use of a flag or symbol in a political party logo is consistent with its broader meaning.

It will be able to consider whether a flag associated with the union movement should be used by far-right parties.

Concurrently, it will be able to consider whether a symbol of cultural importance to a right-wing organisation should be used on the logo of a political party of the left.

Importantly, the provision would apply retrospectively, so that the AEC could reconsider its ruling on Australia First's logo or any other existing political logo which might be challenged.

Anyone who believes that the use of a flag or symbol in the logo of a registered political party is inconsistent with the history or cultural significance of that flag or symbol will be able to object in writing to the Electoral Commission to the continued use of the logo.

If the Electoral Commission believes that there is an inconsistency, it must uphold the objection and notify the political party.

Under the amendments contained in this bill, the Electoral Commission must alert the political party that it will be deregistered within a month, or if it makes an application under section 134 but that application is refused.

The Electoral Commission will also be required to give the parties to an objection under this section written notice of the reasons for its decision if it upholds the objection and to publicise those reasons.

It is important to state that the bill will absolutely do nothing to affect the status of the Australian flag as our national flag under the Flags Act 1953.

It is an important opportunity to improve the Commonwealth Electoral Act and to make sure that we can protect those very historic and culturally significant symbols that we have in our nation and that they are not used in a party political way that is inconsistent with the views that they have in the history and their cultural heritage.

They are flags and symbols which have some historical or cultural context which reflect activities, events or developments which are unique to these institutions or regions.

They should not be taken away and used by any one political party for its benefit, particularly when that use is totally inconsistent with the relevance of the flag or symbol.

That is, unfortunately, what has happened in the case of the great Eureka flag which means so much to my regional community and so much more broadly.

As I said at the outset, this is not about banning the use of the Eureka flag as a party political logo but it is about asking the Australian Electoral Commission to understand and take into consideration its historical and cultural significance.

In Ballarat we do want people to come to the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka. We want them to see the original flag that flew over the stockade on 3 December 1854. We want them to understand the history of how our democracy has developed, the role of that, in essence, civil uprising where people felt they were pushed so far that their only choice was to take up arms against their own government to have their voices heard, because they had no right to a vote.

We want people to understand that history, and we do not think that this flag should be used by Australia First or any political party that does not have a view consistent with that significant role that it plays in Australia's history.

7 I commend this bill to the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.