Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to briefly address the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. In doing so, I acknowledge the great work of my colleague in the other place, Senator Farrell, who has carried this legislation for the Labor Party. He has spent a lot of time with his counterparts in the government over the last few weeks and months to get to this outcome that we hope to support today, subject to the amendments that I understand will be moved by the government shortly.

Subject to the government's moving those amendments that have been agreed between the major parties, we will be supporting this electoral legislation. It's a response to the issues canvassed and discussed by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the JSCEM, in the committee's interim report on the authorisation of voter communication. We've got some terrific colleagues from all sides of the House on that committee, but we've got the member for Scullin and the member for Oxley here, who, along with Senator Ketter from our side, have done an extraordinary amount of good, considered work on the matters before us which have become this bill. I wanted to acknowledge the work of those three, and also Senator Brown, for the work that they've done collectively with colleagues from the other parties.

I recognise that since this bill was originally proposed a lot of work has gone into explaining the intentions of the bill, the practical implementation of various parts of the bill. I acknowledge the work of the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan. I know from my colleagues across the table and from around the place that Senator Ryan is unwell. We wish him a speedy recovery from his illness. We also acknowledge that he has been available to us, despite his illness, as we worked through some of the issues to get to the resolution that I hope we reach by the time the government moves its amendments and we support the amended bill.

We have a pretty simple objective with this electoral legislation: we want to ensure that the rules and regulations surrounding political communication are clear, but also that they don't hinder genuine political communication—that they don't overreach and get in the way of genuine, legitimate, important conversations in our democracy. That's really where we've come from as we've worked through these issues and as the JSCEM colleagues have worked through these issues. That committee recommended that any new requirements for electoral authorisation be clear, concise and easy to navigate, and we agree. The JSCEM also recommended that, as far as was practical, the authorisation requirements shouldn't interfere with the primary and obvious purpose of that communication with electors.

The opposition through discussions with the government have queried, over the past few weeks and months, many of the provisions that were put before the House to ensure that we are achieving those pretty simple objectives for political communication. I think it is fair to say that one key point of contention has been the bill's application to modern communication techniques, in particular digital communication. We don't want to see an authorisation regime which places onerous burdens on otherwise timely digital communication. That's neither a desirable nor an acceptable outcome from our point of view. Through correspondence with the minister, the opposition, via Senator Farrell, have sought and subsequently received assurances that the practical implementation of the legislation that remains and that will be amended will not cut across those well-considered recommendations arrived at by the JSCEM. On top of that, I acknowledge that the Electoral Commission has provided some further information which relates to the practical application of any new regime. The opposition are grateful for their assistance as well.

The main reason that we can support the amended legislation before us is that the government has removed the purely and quite ridiculously political measures in schedule 2, which were in the original proposal, which were contrary to the recommendations of the JSCEM and were dealt with elsewhere in the relevant electoral legislation. We do understand—it's not our choice—that, unfortunately, the government will continue to pursue those, which is not entirely surprising. Anyone who saw the Prime Minister's dummy spit on election night, 14 months ago, would not be entirely surprised to hear that, having whinged and whined his way around the country for 14 months—

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tantrum!

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

with that big tantrum, as the member for Oxley rightly points out. No-one would be surprised that they want to continue with this ridiculous tantrum, which wouldn't be fitting for the under 11s at Rochedale Rovers losing a grand final, let alone for the Prime Minister of a great nation like ours. So it is disappointing but not entirely surprising to hear that they will continue to pursue this pretty ridiculous campaign, which flies in the face of the considered work of the committee and which isn't consistent with the attitude of the minister, who has been, as I said, accommodating. A bit of free advice for the Prime Minister: it's not really a good look to run around the country for 14 months whingeing and whining about an election result. He kept the country waiting long enough on election night. To drag it out more than a year after the election is a pretty disturbing and disappointing outcome.

The core underlying issue is not even the electoral laws. It is ideological. It is that this government can't be trusted with Medicare. They haven't believed in it since day one, since the days of Howard and before, and they look for any opportunity to strangle it. When that was called out during the election campaign, the Australian people reacted as they should, and they said, 'Take your hands off Medicare.' We shouldn't pretend it was some kind of aspect of the campaign that led Australians to believe that. It is a core belief of the Australian people that we should have the best health system in the world, we should have Medicare, we should have universal health care and your access to health care should be determined by your Medicare card and not your credit card. So the Australian people reacted as we expected they would. That wasn't an electoral issue. It wasn't about the regime around the electoral rules; it was about a fundamental belief.

We maintain that fundamental belief in Medicare. It is disappointing that those opposite do not. They are even dragging out the unfreezing of the rebates, which just shows again that they didn't learn the lesson of that election last year, 14 months ago. The Prime Minister did infamously call the police in when he nearly lost that election. They told him there was absolutely no case to answer, so he has tried to change the rules. He should spend less time reprosecuting last year's election and more time rectifying his cuts to Medicare. It's all part of the circus on that side of the House, unfortunately—this whole fracas about Medicare and the election and the electoral rules. We are always in the cart for a proper conversation about good electoral rules which keep pace with the times, but we won't indulge the Prime Minister's dummy spit.

The opposition, through the shadow special minister of state, my colleague Senator Farrell, will continue to work with the government to ensure our laws function as intended and that legitimate political communication is not hindered or interfered with. We won't, as I said before, indulge that dummy spit from the Prime Minister, but we will support the bills when they're amended, after some discussion, some consultation, some negotiation and a lot of good work from people on all sides of this House.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members opposite for supporting the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It does not surprise me that they will not be supporting other measures that will be pursued from a trigger in the last federal election, which, of course, was Labor's 'Mediscare' campaign. It was a campaign that was corrupt. It was deceitful. It was deliberate. Sadly, as we heard from the member for Rankin, they still to this day are proud of their deceitfulness, of their deliberate communicative corruption. If you heard the member's speech, there was a threat. Lessons have not been learnt, apparently. They have every intention to do such things again.

One million counterfeit Medicare cards that looked absolutely like the real thing in terms of size, colour, graphic design and even the Medicare logo were printed, and they carried this message:

1. SAVE BULK BILLING

2. STOP MEDICARE PRIVATISATION

3. KEEP TESTS AND MEDICINES AFFORDABLE

PUT THE LIBERALS LAST

That was all there was on the face of the fake cards that very deliberately looked just like the real thing, and the key word was 'privatisation', something that was not, never has been and never will be contemplated by coalition.

On the opposite side of the card, on the mock card that it was, was the authorisation that was behind other dishonest messaging, including 'Vote to save Medicare'. The authorisation read: 'Authorised by Dave Oliver, ACTU Secretary, 365 Queen Street, Melbourne. Printed by Kosdown Printing, 10 Rocklea Drive, Port Melbourne, Victoria.' This fake card, purported to carry a Medicare backed message, became the centrepiece of a highly coordinated, highly orchestrated, totally dishonest and deceitful campaign by the Australian Labor Party. They were trying to do nothing less than steal the 2016 election, based on palpable untruths.

The ACTU handed out one million of these cards, mostly at polling booths in the final two weeks of the campaign. Its members often heavied their way into poll position at pre-poll booths. They also dominated, where they could organise it, with corflutes that carried similar messages. The very local message at these booths that was barked at everybody who went through the door was 'Save Medicare'. GetUp!—the left-wing activist organisation that was partly formed by Labor— (Quorum formed)Isn't itinteresting that we had a member of the opposition calling for quorum because he wanted to hold back debate? He wanted to ensure I had less time to speak. Do you know why he wanted to do that? Because I mentioned those terrible words they don't want to hear: the GetUp! organisation. They understand that their leader was instrumental in funding this left-wing political activist group that helped them purport dishonesties and a disgraceful Mediscare campaign in the 2016 election, and they will do whatever it takes to take GetUp! off the political agenda. But we will not take it off the political agenda, and that is why, despite the member for Rankin's previous protestations, we will ensure that the subsequent measures associated with this bill will, indeed, be pursued. The member for Rankin made it very clear that the Labor Party intends to do it all over again in 2019, or whenever the next federal election is held.

The very high degree of thought that Labor put into this deliberate effort to hoodwink the country and sidestep the law as it exists, pending reforms proposed by this and other bills, is apparent on a couple of levels. One giveaway concerns Labor's sidestepping of the constraints on impersonation that exists in current legislation or just too glib—too obvious. It is illegal under the Criminal Code to impersonate a Commonwealth official. The act is silent, however, on the impersonation of an agency of the Commonwealth, a situation that will soon be remedied under a supplementary bill to the amendment being considered today.

So when the ACTU printed those one million fake Mediscare cards, as if they were generated by Medicare itself, they were technically within the law. Even though it is obvious that if Medicare was, indeed, behind the card, then someone at Medicare, an official at Medicare, would have to enable the cards to be printed. Obviously, there was no such involvement by anyone at Medicare. And Labor, and its mates at the ACTU, knew that what they were doing by mimicking the Medicare logo and precise card format wasn't actionable under current law due to that technicality, just as the ACTU knew that the current law around authorisation for electoral material had a loophole large enough for them to drive their dishonest intent through.

Under the current law, requirements relating to authorisation on electoral material are designed to ensure that people know just who is presenting them with election information. That has been the case through various iterations of the electoral laws since their first form in 1902. Obviously, just who it is that is presenting information aimed at influencing your vote is important, relevant information to have on a range of levels. If an extraordinary proposition is being put, such as a suggestion that one party in a political contest intends to privatise an agency as critical as Medicare, then the impact of that message on people and potentially on their voting intention is going to be significantly downgraded if the authorisation makes clear that the suggestion is being made by a direct opponent.

At another level, the authorisation gives the recipient and, indeed, electoral authorities, an avenue of contacting whoever produced the material. That is important if there are questions about the information or, indeed, there is an intention to launch legal action. There are quite specific requirements in relation to these authorisations across a range of methods of transmission of electoral material, but Labor obviously went looking for and found the loopholes in order to engage in what they hoped would be election-winning corruption. If the electoral information is, for example, a how-to-vote card, then there must be an authorisation on both sides of the card because it is clearly possible, indeed it is even likely, that someone who looks at a how-to-vote card only looks at that side of the card that has the relevant information on it for them to cast their vote. If there is no need to turn it over, often they don't. It is because of this danger—and only recently has it become so apparent—that the parliament instructed that the name of the person authorising how-to-vote cards, along with their address, had to be printed on both sides to overcome just that possibility, even that probability. That is why the how-to-vote cards ended up being authorised on both sides.

What was missed, however, by the parliament, when that decision was made, was that some forms of other published material were left with the requirement, as had previously been the case, whereby authorisation was only required at the end of the information—at the end of the document. Arguably, at least in the legal sense, therefore, the authorisation that Dave Oliver of the ACTU put on the flip side of the card, which he self-evidently wanted everybody to think was a real Medicare card with Medicare-endorsed messages, was right at the end of the information, even though the dangers in relation to missing it were no doubt crystal clear, indeed central, to Mr Oliver's purpose and intent.

His punt, his belief, was that people wouldn't turn the card over. His hope was that people would think the card was actually from Medicare, endorsed by Medicare. Because he was impersonating a Commonwealth agency and not a Commonwealth official, he and his intended beneficiary, the Labor Party, would be in the clear. Indeed, that is what the Australian Electoral Commission found when it considered whether it ought to take action over this fake card. It couldn't. The authorisation information was there, however deliberate the effort was to cover it up. The Australian Federal Police also realised that they could not take action because the impersonation was of the agency itself and not of the official.

So Labor and its patsies, in perpetrating 'Mediscare', took full advantage of the letter of the law and totally ignored the spirit of the law governing electoral material to try and steal the 2016 federal election. This bill, as presented before the House today, seeks to close a loophole that will not be open to Labor, the unions or even their best mates GetUp! at the next election. A range of changes to the authorisation regime will be put in place by the Australian Electoral Commission, which will gain broad new powers. It will have new injunctive powers and information-gathering powers to support enforcement. The AEC will also be able to issue legislative instruments to explain how communications in various media should be authorised as they emerge.

As much as the Labor Party celebrate the corrupt activity of the 'Mediscare' campaign, change is required. That change needs to be legislative change. It is the only way we can close these loopholes for the Australian vote of the Australian people.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary diatribe! Although, perhaps, we should not be so surprised that government members prefer to go back to the past and seek to refight the last election rather than concentrate on the challenges before their government and, indeed, the challenges before Australia today. The contribution we just witnessed from the member for Fairfax was extraordinary in many respects, but perhaps two deserve particular comment. His remarks did not address the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which is before the House. In fact, he spoke about a presently imaginary bill. I look forward to having the opportunity to debating it.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't want to talk about 'Mediscare'. That's the problem.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very keen, along with the member for Rankin, the member for Oxley, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Ballarat and all of our colleagues—we will continue to stand up for universal health care. The thing that the member for Fairfax should reflect upon is the distinction between process and substance—a matter that I will turn to when I discuss the bill that is, in fact, before the House. Members of this government, although it won't be the government for very much longer the way it is travelling, should reflect on the issue and not continue their crazed obsession and their pathetic homage to the Prime Minister's election night tantrum when it comes to this. We had 15 minutes of contribution from the member for Fairfax—15 wasted minutes when we consider this significant bill before us and what it represents.

I'll make one last remark on the contribution from the member for Fairfax, and I hope that we will not see similar contributions from other government members. If they want to trawl over the authorisation details—which have been examined in forensic detail already—we welcome that debate. Let's have it again. We welcome the concessions you've made in the course of your contribution—concessions that you are bound to make—but you must not confuse these issues of process with the issue of substance that are of such great concern to so many Australians. They were at the last election; they will continue to be at the next election.

Mr Ted O'Brien interjecting—

We welcome any opportunity, Member for Fairfax, to carry on this debate. I will turn myself now to the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which is before the House. I, like the member for Rankin, am pleased to rise in support of this bill, subject to the caveat set out by the member for Rankin, which reflect a constructive process between the parties and the House—a process entirely at odds with the previous contribution. I have been very pleased to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and be part of its important program of work.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge my friend the member for Oxley, whose past experience and insight have been invaluable to the work of the committee. I acknowledge also my Labor colleagues on the committee, Senators Brown and Ketter, and the work of the chair, Senator Reynolds—I'll touch upon her contribution in a moment—as well as the contribution of the representative of the Greens, Senator Rhiannon. The hallmark of this committee, in this parliament and in previous parliaments, has been its critical role in setting the ground rules for elections. It ensures that the Australian public see a contest of ideas—a contest of competing visions between the parties and others seeking to take their place in this place and in the other place—and makes sure that those rules are fit for purpose and that we can have that contest of ideas.

I think we must touch upon the wider context here. There is a declining sense of trust in this institution and, indeed, of the political process more broadly amongst Australians—in particular, amongst young Australians. If any of the ideas we come in this place to espouse are to matter, we must do more to ensure that the ground rules under which the political contest is played out are fit for purpose and are seen to be fit for purpose. This bill takes some significant steps in that regard. I welcome those steps in modernising, appropriately, the authorisation regime.

I do note, as the member for Rankin did on behalf of the opposition, that the bill as introduced did not reflect the process of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and did not reflect the evidence that was adduced before this significant committee. This point is worth making and remaking because how we deal with these pieces of legislation is particularly important. They don't go to policy debates upon which we will have legitimate differences; they go to setting up appropriate regimes that all of us should be able to agree with and operate within so that we can have fair and free elections and robust debate, and continue to debate the future of Medicare and other matters of importance to all Australians. I believe this bill reflects the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It reflects the input of experts. I acknowledge the secretariat and our AEC secondees for the input they have had to the process which led to the preparation of the bill that is before us.

I also join the member for Rankin in acknowledging the Special Minister of State and extend my sympathies and best wishes to Senator Ryan. I hope that he is back soon to continue on with his important work—and can continue to play a role, along with the Shadow Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell—in progressing these matters in a bipartisan fashion, in good time, over the life of this parliament so that we can contest the next election under a regime that is fit for purpose.

In terms of authorisations and more broadly, this is a critical task, and it is critical that we are able to rely on the processes of this parliament—in particular, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. So I was a little troubled by the contribution of the previous speaker, because it goes so far from the ongoing attempts to maintain and achieve consensus, to accept that regaining trust in the political process is a challenge that we must all share in overcoming. It's a challenge that will not be reached, that will not be attained, through contributions the like of which we have just been a party to.

I had intended to make some very brief remarks and I will conclude them here by saying that this bill is a small but significant step in the process of modernising our electoral regimes and achieving a greater degree of consistency when it comes to authorisation. It is my hope that we can continue, through the work of all of us in this parliament, to ensure that a similar process of updating goes to other critical aspects of our electoral law, including fundraising and donations. I note that of course there is a bill before this parliament, introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, that would go quite some way towards advancing these objectives. I hope that we can either progress that bill or something similar, or, at the very least, hear some objections from government members as to the substantive matters that are contained within it.

Again, subject to the caveats set out by my friend the member for Rankin, I am pleased to support this bill.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and welcome the contributions of the previous member and other members in this debate so far. I think we can all agree that the principles of this legislation are to modernise and update Australian electoral law to reflect reality—the challenges we face in a society where electronic communications have become all pervasive as an effective means of communicating directly with the electorate. It will make sure that we have standard and consistent rules that operate across election material. This will make sure that people understand the credibility and quality of information that is being provided but, more importantly, it will stop deception.

That is the critical point: to stop deception. I know there's a lot of calls for bipartisanship. I would hope that would start with the bipartisanship of our political opponents, who did wrong—and acknowledged their wrong—in one of the things that we saw during the last election, where they tried to misinform the public or to misrepresent political campaigns as coming from a Commonwealth entity, particularly Medicare. This bill seeks to require an onus or burden that Commonwealth agencies, entities or services cannot be misrepresented for political purposes to try to scare or deliberately intimidate Australian voters into taking a particular course of action.

We know they tried to do that during what we have now dubbed the 'Mediscare' of the 2016 election. Information material was deliberately circulated to voters, whether it was electronically or in little things handed out at polling booths. I saw them at polling booths in the Goldstein electorate, particularly at the Sandringham College booth. Information was deliberately presented to voters: a misrepresentation of the issues around health care. I am somebody who cares passionately about health care and delivering the healthcare system that we need for the 21st century. I saw Labor Party people or Labor Party acolytes or allies choosing to misrepresent the position of Medicare in the hope that it would convince people to vote against the government. That was based on a deception; it was based on a lie and based on misinformation designed to scare the public, and that needs to end. We should not allow people to misrepresent Commonwealth entities, particularly service providers that might be the basis of people's livelihoods, health care or support. What any political party can do in that—and it may not just be the Labor Party and their behaviour; it might be other political parties as well who seek to promote the idea that they are acting on behalf of a Commonwealth agency—can threaten the livelihoods, the safety and the security of voters.

We see that sort of behaviour in other countries in much more violent forms, but when you seek to do it to somebody's livelihood it can have exactly the same effect of intimidating them into a course of action which may not be not just in their best interests but may also deceive them in the actions of their own free will. That's why this piece of legislation is so important. It controls the behaviour of others, to make sure that they do the honest thing and the decent thing. And it also makes sure they're held accountable for it.

I am somebody who believes very strongly in freedom of speech, and part of the credibility of any content—as a critical condition for freedom of speech—is that people be held to account for their conduct. Nobody ever needs to defend themselves from the excessive use of please and thank you. That is not how freedom of speech works. It is when people cross the lines of social acceptability or say something challenging or difficult. Equally, it applies to making sure that we hold people accountable when they deceive the public.

That's what we saw consistently from the opposition during the last election. And, let's face it: it did work partly for their own electoral gain. I'm quite sure that there were people who were very nervous about the circumstances that they faced. There were people—not necessarily in my electorate but outside of my electorate who contacted people within my electorate who raised the issue with me—who were particularly concerned about the pushing and the messaging that came from the Australian Labor Party and their acolytes and allies to deceive the public to vote for them. We see now that that behaviour continues to perpetuate itself, and our hope is that the measures in this piece of legislation will end that practice, in the public good, in the interests of making sure that we have a democracy built on integrity rather than being built on deception, as so often the opposition would like it to be.

There are lots of things in the authorisation framework that are allies to this piece of legislation. (Quorum formed)It's good to be back. We started this speech on the basis of the deception of the modern Australian Labor Party, and at the heart of the quorum call that they just did is the deception of thinking that anything that they have to say is relevant in this discussion—and we know that's not the case.

But let's get back to the substantive provisions of the bill. We know that this bill includes an authorisation regime—see, I can get excited about anything! The bill’s authorisation regime exempts the need to authorise clothing or any other item intended to be worn by a person; the reporting of news, presentation of current affairs or editorial content in news media; communication solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes, or solely for the purpose of announcing a meeting; opinion polling and research relating to voting intentions—which is going to be good for those opposite, because when we get to the next federal election, you're going to be sorry about the data that's coming out—communication for personal purposes; communication intended to remain within a disclosure entity; and real-time communications, where the speaker and any disclosure entity on whose behalf the speaker is communicating are, or could reasonably be, identified.

So the authorisation framework, as the previous speaker said, modernises the system for the 21st century. That's a fundamentally good thing which deals with lots of different amendments to other acts, as it reflects the full panoply of electronic media that we use these days for communication. The hope is that we'll be able to continue the legislative change to make sure those opposite can't use those channels for deception and are held accountable for their conduct, as well as making sure the Australian people see the fraudulence of the arguments that are often put out by the modern Australian Labor Party. Critical to that is accountability. That's what we are seeing them do.

The only other point I'd like to make in my remaining five minutes and 19 seconds is on polling booths. I know it isn't covered by the bill, but I think it's something we should all aspire to at future elections and in future legislation. One of the great frustrations that we have in the wonderful Goldstein electorate is that we have our main divisional office in Goldstein, which is in Bay Road, Sandringham. It's a lovely part of the world, though I can't believe the divisional office has a view pretty much towards the beach, but that's for another day. Because of its relatively limited size, the office doesn't have the capacity to absorb the number of people in the Goldstein electorate who opt to vote early—they know what they're going to do and we encourage that behaviour. One of my favourite moments during the last election was when a woman came in and said to me, 'Tim, I've always voted Labor, but on this occasion I'm going to vote Liberal.' The reason had to do with the behaviour of the CFA, the behaviour of the modern Labor Party and their policy around the CFA and the deception of Andrews government—we're back to deception again in how they conduct themselves in industrial relations and want to destroy volunteering. She couldn't vote at the divisional office because it's too modest. So there needed to be a facility rented nearby, which was literally within 200 metres of the divisional office at the Uniting Church in Trentham Street. If you get out Google maps, it's the next street; you can walk there. It doesn't dismiss the fact that there are some challenges in doing so for some people who are less physically able. I'm being charitable to those opposite because the good people of the Goldstein electorate are prepared to turn out and hand out how-to-vote cards in the early voting stage for their candidates, but it's placed a disproportionate burden on everybody being able to put a position forward.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Goldstein will take his seat. He should be confining his remarks to the bill which is before the House.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am, and in the end it comes back to information that's advertised and making sure that people have accessible information about where they can go to vote. The issue we raise is a question of where people can vote and whether it's appropriate to have two sites in close proximity and the consequences of that—including the how-to-vote material that's released and provided and the potential for future material to be released on mobile telephones and other technology and where people can use those to vote. I simply make the point that, when you have divisional offices in such close proximity, everybody has to produced more material which has to be authorised as required under the Electoral Act. Perhaps it would be better, where there is such close proximity, if we could focus on one place rather than two to reduce the amount of content that then needs to be authorised—consistent with the principles and objectives of this piece of legislation and the legislation it seeks to amend. That's how we can sensibly continue to reform electoral laws so that they reflect the needs of the 21st century and deliver the content and material people need in a way that's accessible, transparent—and so that candidates and political parties can be held to account for their conduct.

One of the great things about the coalition, and the Liberal Party in particular, is we are prepared to stand up for who we are and what we stand for and what we believe in. That's the foundation of any political campaign; it isn't the basis of trying to pump out content to deceive people into voting for us. That, Deputy Speaker, is the modern Labor Party.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's unfortunate that no-one else from the other side is speaking on the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I note there have been some great contributions from this side of the House.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not on the bill!

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the bill. I noted that the member for Scullin tried to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear in his speech. But, really, this bill is all about transparency. It's all about accountability. We all remember that cold winter campaign. I remember being on the pre-poll for three weeks.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were in Queensland. It wasn't cold up there. You should have been in Tasmania.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was cold in Queensland. It was as cold as a mother-in-law's kiss in Queensland! For three weeks—

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll tell her you said that!

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those dedicated souls, including my volunteers, stood on the pre-poll for three long weeks. I think the temperature got below 20 degrees one day. I had this little old lady come up to me one day. She was almost frostbitten. She said: 'Andrew, are you going to take Medicare away? I had a phone call that you guys are going to take Medicare away.' I didn't know this lady but I reassured her that what was being pedalled by the Labor Party were lies. They were, in fact, lies. I assured her that we would not be selling Medicare or privatising Medicare and that we were staunch defenders of Medicare. And she said: 'That's fine. That's all I need to know. I'm going to vote for you.'

There were many, many stories that came out of the 2016 general election of the lies and the fabrications that were perpetrated by the Labor Party. And the Labor Party, unfortunately, wear it as a badge of honour. It is a great sadness that those opposite would think that it is smart, clever and almost funny to perpetrate a myth that the government was ever intending to privatise or to scrap Medicare. Fundamentally, it was wrong. They knew it. And it was nothing other than a cheap political stunt—and a cheap political stunt that, very sadly, almost worked. We have to ensure, in this place, that those sorts of games, perpetrated by the Labor Party and by GetUp!, never have an opportunity to succeed again.

So this bill is all about ensuring democracy. That's what I thought we were here for. I know I've only been here for 14 months but I thought that this place was all about democracy—not about trying to pull the wool over the eyes of some of our most disadvantaged people. Making robocalls to, in particular, the elderly at night, trying to tell them that they were going to lose Medicare—that is absolutely unforgivable. Those opposite that were involved in that decision-making should hang their heads in shame. It is an absolute disgrace. So we are taking steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act, like many pieces of legislation, with time does not keep pace with modern-day technology. As time goes on, we're living in a world where technology is continuously growing and getting faster and faster. The sort of technology that the member for Scullin is on right now wasn't even thought conceivable 10 years ago. Now they are used as tools for good—sometimes good and sometimes bad. In the 2016 election, they were used for, in part, bad. These reforms that are encapsulated in this bill will ensure the integrity, accountability and transparency of who is actually making these representations. Who is actually behind the messaging will be made clear to the receiver, whether it's by email, by mobile phone or by who knows what the technology will be tomorrow.

Fundamentally, it is a tenet of our democracy that, particularly at election time, if someone makes a political statement, the rest of the country ought to know who has made that statement. When you look at any political advertising—whether it be a billboard or an ad on television or radio—you've always got that, 'Written, spoken and authorised by Joe Bloggs on behalf of the LNP,' for instance. But what we saw in the 2016 election was modern-day technology being used by the Labor Party for no other reason than to hoodwink, fool and misrepresent to parts of our community—our most vulnerable community—so that they thought that Medicare was being privatised. This bill will put a stop to it. As I said, there is nothing more important than that the identification of a representation be made clear. (Quorum formed.)

I encourage all my colleagues to stay and listen to the rest of this speech. It's very interesting that those opposite continue to gag both me and my colleagues when we speak about this bill because they are embarrassed. They are highly embarrassed, and so they should be. I know that some in the House weren't part of the leadership team that made this decision to obfuscate and misrepresent our position in relation to Medicare. I'm hoping that those opposite, as they grow through the ranks in the Labor Party, would staunchly defend the next time something like this comes up in a future campaign and do the right thing—that both lawyers on the other side of the room would do the right thing and not try and misrepresent the facts. As a colleague, I'm sure that they wouldn't do that in their own professional lives. In our democracy, we want to always ensure that we're open, we're accountable and we're transparent.

When those decisions were made by the Labor Party in the 2016 election, they sought to cover up. They sought to manufacture this whole story. It's all coming down to the importance of authorising this distributed material, whether it be in print or whether it be in electronic format. This bill will also have similar provisions. It doesn't matter whether it's a referendum or whether it is a general election, the same things will apply—that's equally important. It will harmonise authorisation requirements across broadcasting electoral and referendum legislation. It'll retain current requirements in relation to specified printed materials.

There are certain exemptions such as clothing. You won't have to have an authorisation on clothing—that's common sense. If you're reporting news or the presentation of current affairs or editorial content in news media, that will also be exempt. Communications solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes—if those on the other side have anything to do with it, they won't have anything to do with academic purposes, I'm sure—or solely for the purpose of announcing a meeting are exempt. Opinion polling and research related to voting intentions are exempt. Communication for personal purposes is exempt. Communication intended to remain within a disclosure entity is exempt. Real-time communications where the speaker and any disclosure entity on whose behalf the speaker is communicating are, or could reasonably be, identified are also exempt. If someone is standing on a street corner or in a town hall making some representations, whatever it might be, clearly we know who that person is or we can make certain investigations to find out who they are.

Interestingly, it has been decided that schedule 2 is to be removed from this bill, but make no mistake, we will be back. We will be back and we will reintroduce—

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Matthias says it so much better.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll be back! We will be back to reintroduce schedule 2. I think it's important although, strictly speaking, I understand it's not part of this bill, but schedule 2 will make it a criminal offence for people who misrepresent and pretend to be representing a government department or authority. Clearly, those people on the other side from GetUp! and the ALP misrepresented the situation at the 2016 election. We will be back. We will introduce criminal provisions that will see that those people, should they do it again, end up in court and suffer the sanctions of criminal penalties.

Debate interrupted.