Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, particularly given my membership and participation on the Joint Standing Committee for Electoral Matters. I can report to the House that the committee is functioning very well under the leadership of the chair, Senator Linda Reynolds, and deputy chair, the member for Scullin, and with the very good participation of Senator Rhiannon from the Australian Greens. The issues faced by the committee are complex and detailed, despite many in this parliament and outside of it being of the view that change can be very, very easy. This is because in campaigns, where there's a will there's a way—and later I will address one of the more disgusting and deceptive forms of political communication that this bill will now prevent being sent, without revealing who the communication has been sent by.

The bill addresses the recommendations made by the first interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2016 federal election, tabled on 9 September 2016. It relates specifically to the authorisation of voter communication. Current authorisation requirements have not kept pace with technological change. Those who might want to hide their identity from voters can do so by communicating via media not covered by the current authorisation rules, including new and developing technologies. This restricts important information being available to voters when they make decisions on election day, and limits the ability of regulators to identify the source of a communication in the case of noncompliance. Consistent authorisation, as directed by this bill, allows voters to assess the credibility of all communication when forming their own personal political judgement.

This bill ensures that electoral communication is clearly authorised, irrespective of how it is communicated. Authorisation requirements are consistent across different communication channels. With consistent and higher obligations on all groups subject to the Commonwealth electoral funding and finance disclosure regime, the public are safeguarded from misrepresentation and false statements purportedly made on behalf of Australian government bodies.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act is one of the oldest pieces of Commonwealth legislation, and the act's authorisation regime is outdated. Modern campaign techniques, such as robocalls and bulk SMS messages, do not require an authorisation informing voters of who is actually contacting them. Subsequent legislative amendments have also created inconsistencies in the legislation, with separate requirements for broadcast media and internet advertising. This is outdated when the same advertisement can be screened or broadcast on streaming services. There are inconsistencies related to printed material as well. Flyers have different requirements from how-to-vote cards; some items of clothing are exempt, while others require authorisation.

This bill requires that all paid advertising, regardless of the medium used to communicate it or the source of that communication, must be authorised. Communications—whether paid or unpaid—made by or on behalf of entities with disclosure obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act must be authorised. This includes registered political parties, candidates and third-party campaign groups whose expenditure on influencing an election exceeds the disclosure threshold, and donors whose donations exceed the disclosure threshold.

Provisions that require authorisations for printed material—for example, leaflets, flyers, corflutes and how-to-vote cards—will be retained. Authorisations will now inform voters of the name of the political party behind the communication. Currently, this is only a requirement for broadcast advertising. Other entities with disclosure obligations under the Electoral Act will also be required to put their names to their communications, including associated entities of political parties and third-party campaign organisations.

Putting your name to your communication sounds like something very reasonable. While we are here today because the Electoral Act has not kept up with technology, it would be remiss of me not to address the highly and knowingly deceptive communication by the ALP at the last federal election—and not just during the last federal election but, worse, on the day itself. The despicable text message that was sent by the Labor Party— (Quorum formed)

I thank the member for Fremantle. It's very good to draw to the attention of the House the matter of the despicable text message sent by the Labor Party at the last federal election.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They didn't want to hear about that, did they?

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They certainly didn't want to hear about that, and that's why they wanted to stop me in my tracks. But that's just given me the opportunity to fire up and speak more vigorously about this issue, and I thank the member for Fremantle for that.

In the text message to which I refer, in the field that describes who the message came from, it says 'Medicare', not 'the Labor Party'. It came from the Labor Party, but it says 'Medicare'—a government organisation. That text message sent a message about what could happen to Medicare—not what was going to happen but what the Labor Party wanted people to think in that campaign. It was a highly deceptive text message. Very interestingly, it's not just the message itself that is very deceptive; it is how the Labor Party dealt with this matter. It is very telling. The message was designed to be tricky, it was designed to scare, but what did the Labor Party say about this message on the day?

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry? Apologised?

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they didn't say 'Sorry'; they didn't apologise. In fact, on 2 July, a spokesman from the Labor Party told news.com.au that the party was not responsible for the bulk message and denied knowledge of the last-minute text message campaign. On the day the message was sent, the Labor Party denied all knowledge of the deceptive text message. What did they say a month later, after much public pressure to tell the truth? Kicking and screaming, they confirmed that they sent the text message—surprise, surprise!—but a spokesman said it was not intended to give the impression that Medicare was the sender; rather, that Medicare was the subject of the message and there should be no surprise that it was not a government message.

Despite how the ALP spin machine tells us about their campaigning abilities and strategies, are we really to believe that there was panic and confusion within the Labor Party on election day—that they really didn't know whether they had sent the message or not? Are we really to believe that they sent the message out not as they intended? Are we really to believe that the Labor Party, on election day, sent a political communication out but not as they intended? Are we to believe that they didn't carefully consider every word of that text message? Are we to believe that they didn't send it to an internal test group to check, proof and understand exactly how that text message would be delivered? And are we to believe that this is the first-ever text message sent out by the Labor Party so that they could claim that they had made a mistake and it wasn't as they intended?

I believe that it was certainly the very first text message sent by the Labor Party where they very calculatedly and knowingly placed the name of a government department in the sender field and then, after the fact, claimed they thought it was the subject. The Queensland LNP hit the nail on the head in their submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry. They said:

... ‘Medicare’ text relied upon the fact that they would not have to include a Labor Party authorisation. If it had, voters would have the information they needed to judge Labor’s actions for what they were ...

Interestingly, during the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry, I asked Mr Carroll, the national secretary of the ALP, if it were a strategy to make sure that the sender of the text message was unknown. Guess what? I got no straight answer.

This event shows us exactly that the ALP cannot be trusted or believed. Most worryingly—and this is why I'm pleased we will pass this legislation—in my final questioning of Mr Carroll, I repeatedly asked, 'On the basis that the law didn't change, would the ALP rule out further sending of such text messages?' He would not rule out doing it again—whatever it takes.

When this bill passes, he won't be able to do it again; the Labor Party won't be able to do it again. To enforce the new requirements, the bill introduces a wider range of enforcement options for the Australian Electoral Commission, including expanded injunction powers, enforceable undertakings, new information-gathering powers to support enforcement and more substantial fines. The Australian Electoral Commission will also be able to issue legislative instruments to explain how communications in various media should be authorised, for example social media posts or robocalls. This will keep the regime up-to-date as new technology emerges and it will simplify compliance. Schedule 1 of the bill preserves the ability to communicate anonymously for sensitive material or for academic or artistic purposes. The news media will continue to be able to protect the identity of their sources, staff and collaborators. This bill also explicitly exempts personal and internal communication of disclosure entities.

The work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is not complete. It will now turn its attention to political donations, not just to political parties but to all political actors. In the same way that the Electoral Act has not evolved over time with respect to authorisations, the same can be said for dealing with political donations, given the rise of non-political actors in this space. The committee is united in its desire to recommend meaningful and implementable reforms. That's why I'll be working to make sure that Justin Liberman is called before the inquiry in the public hearings of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There are a lot of explanations that third parties and their donors need to make about how they operate for support of political parties. In 2007, the Liberman family donated $50,000 to the left-wing GetUp! organisation, the third-biggest donation they had received by that time. It was very interesting, because a few months later Mr Shorten was at the Imperial Hotel, a mecca for political junkies—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Tangney will refer to members by their correct titles.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition was at the Imperial Hotel in 2007, celebrating at his election night party, and what did he say? 'Hey, stick around; we've got a crowd coming from GetUp!' There is an inextricable link between GetUp! and the Labor Party. How GetUp! operates needs to be examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. How donations that support Mr Shorten both through the Labor Party and GetUp! also need to be examined.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Tangney will refer to members by their correct title.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise to speak this morning on the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Before I start, I invite the members of the opposition to call a quorum as soon as possible so that many of my colleagues can join me, to hear my speech and the points I have to make!

But, firstly, the reason for this bill is that it is a fundamental tenet of our democracy that we have free and fair elections. We cannot have elections in this country where there's coercion, intimidation, threats and also downright deception; where one side of politics takes it upon itself to impersonate a Commonwealth agency to deceive, hoodwink and con the Australian electorate.

The Australian public knows that truth is not a leftist value. We can all remember the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and that speech, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' In the public debate, when a member from the Labor Party stands up, the Australian public knows that they speak with a forked tongue. But what the Australian public trusts are government agencies, so I think that what we saw at the last election—what became known as the Medicare scare campaign—was one of the most disgraceful campaigns in the electoral history of this nation. I well remember, in the early part of the election, standing on a railway station down at Jannali, handing out flyers and talking to constituents who were going to work early in the morning, catching the train from Jannali into the city. When there was a queue of people, someone walked past and yelled out, 'They're going to sell Medicare!'

I thought to myself: what a stupid comment! What a stupid phrase! You cannot sell Medicare. It is not something that can be sold. What are you actually going to sell? Medicare pays out money. There's nothing there; even if you wanted to sell it, it's not worth anything. That is simply an illogical comment, a comment that simply doesn't make sense. I thought no-one would actually believe that. If a Labor person stood up and just said that by themselves, they would be laughed at, and people would dismiss them, knowing the Labor members' history at election campaigns. But what gave credibility to that deception, that lie—and I hate to say that word in this House—was that text message that they sent out. The text message was unauthorised and created the false impression in the minds of millions of Australians that it came from Medicare itself. There was no political disclosure that this was a message from the Labor Party so that people could see, 'This is a message from the Labor Party,' and they would know, from the track record of the Labor Party, that it would be based on falsehoods and dishonesty. Because that disclosure was not there, people were tricked, conned, hoodwinked.

You would think that, having engaged in such disgraceful conduct, against the very principles of our democracy—being involved in a deceptive scheme that undermined free and fair elections in this country—members of the Labor Party would be a little bit contrite. You would think that they would come in here and apologise and say: 'Yes, that was a step too far. We didn't mean it. We are sorry.' That is what you would expect. But, instead, members of the Labor Party come in here and they wear that deception as a badge of honour. They actually think that it is clever that they deceived and misled the Australian public, that they impersonated a Commonwealth agency. They are actually proud of that. This tells us everything we need to know about today's modern Labor Party.

You would hope that, during this debate, at least one member of the Labor Party would get up, or rather stand up—not GetUp!; I'll come to GetUp! in a minute—and say: 'We are sorry. That campaign misled the Australian people.' But no. It's a badge of honour, and they actually laugh about deceiving the Australian public. They actually boast about undermining a fundamental tenet of our democracy. That's why this legislation is necessary.

(Quorum formed.) I thank the member for Fremantle for calling my colleagues here to the House, so I can remind them that truth is not a leftist value. I can remind them that the Labor Party has a long history of deception and of misleading the Australian public, that it engaged in that fraudulent Medicare scare campaign at the last election, that it was trying to undermine our democracy and our right to free and fair elections and that it is actually proud of that. That is the greatest disgrace. It is a disgrace that the Labor Party is actually proud of. It boasts about it and wears it as a badge of honour.

We will remind the Australian public at the next election about the tricks that the Labor Party gets up to. You think you may have gained some short-term political advantage by deceiving the Australian public, but at the next election we will remind them how they were deceived at the last election by a dishonest and fraudulent campaign underwritten by the Australian Labor Party. That's why this legislation is needed, because, otherwise, what will happen at the next election? What is to stop the Labor Party from masquerading as Centrelink and sending out messages to Centrelink recipients, pretending that there will be cuts to their Centrelink pay? What is to stop it from sending out, as if they were from the department of immigration, false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive and untruthful emails and text messages that people would be migrated? What about the Department of Veterans' Affairs? Nothing would stop the Labor Party. That is why this legislation is needed.

At the next election, as another example, there will be a debate on many issues. There will be debate on energy policy. The Labor Party will argue, as they are entitled to in a democracy, for a 50 per cent renewable energy target. They will say to us: 'Look at the wonders of South Australia. Look at how brilliant the South Australian economy is—look how wonderful,'—it actually has the highest electricity prices in the world—'Isn't this something we should achieve? This way we will save the world.' This side of the House will remind the Australian public that high energy prices actually d the economy, destroy jobs and cause hardship and suffering to those who can least afford it. The Labor Party will explain that they think we can just build all these wind turbines and we'll have all this power: 'Isn't this wonderful? Don't they look fantastic?' We'll explain to the Australian people that when the wind doesn't blow the power does not flow.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is how debates in a democracy should go. It should be a contest of ideas. We get up and we argue our cause; Labor get up and argue their cause—of course, with their friends the Greens and GetUp!. That's how a democracy should work. People listen to both sides of the argument and make their decision at the ballot box. That is the concept of fair and free elections. But that gets undermined when one side decides that they will masquerade as a Commonwealth entity—that they will send out bulk text messages in their hundreds of thousands, if not millions, masquerading as Medicare, the Australian Energy Market Operator, the Department of Veterans' Affairs or Centrelink.

We know that there is no deception that the Labor Party will not go to. That's why this legislation is of such importance. I believe that our democracy is important. I believe that free and fair elections are something that 100,000 Australians have sacrificed their lives for. If we lose the debate in a fair and free election and if we cannot argue our cause, that is democracy. But what is not democracy is impersonating Commonwealth agencies. That's why we must have legislation in this country that requires authorisations on bulk text messages. That is a technology that was not there when the Australian Electoral Act was first written. It is an absolutely essential, fundamental thing that we must do to protect democracy in this country.

I hope that the Labor Party, the Greens and their mates at GetUp! support this legislation. I hope that they would also go further and they would make it a criminal offence to impersonate a Commonwealth body. Our democracy is so important. We must have fair and free elections in this country. That is what this legislation protects, and I commend it to the House.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to stand in support of this government legislation, the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. The reason this legislation is so important is really clear. History will show that Labor's 'Mediscare' campaign will be seen forever as a very deliberate, dishonest and, mostly, cruel hoax. The part about this that is such an issue is the fact that it was levelled directly at the most vulnerable people. That was the level of thought and care that Labor had for those people—that they would deliberately and dishonestly scare some of the most vulnerable Australians.

There are a few things in this place that you don't go near, and deliberately and dishonestly scaring the most vulnerable Australians is one of them. But that's exactly what Labor did. What I saw today in the chamber with the previous speaker, and the member at the table, was an absolute pride in the fact that Labor were able to do this. They are proud of it—and that's the bit that really concerns me most. In this place, this federal house, we are here to protect the rights and freedoms of the Australian people. That's what I thought we were all here for. Irrespective of what side of politics you sit on, I thought that was our No. 1 job here. I believe that the most vulnerable people are the people that we in this house are here to represent most strongly, and to see Labor hold those very people with such disrespect and disregard that they would scare these most vulnerable people in their homes by using these robocalls is just appalling.

It is absolutely no wonder that we cannot ever trust the Labor Party. This was the clearest demonstration. If anybody out there is wondering where trust lies with Labor, this was the example of where trust does not lie. In fact, this was one of the most appalling things. I saw it through the eyes of the people who were being called. As I said, we saw those opposite target the most vulnerable, the elderly and those on lower incomes, and literally choose to scare them. How dreadful is that? This is just a contempt by Labor for our democracy, and it is anathema to everything that every single member of parliament in this place is here to represent. Every individual out there expects us to stand up for their basic freedoms and their rights. They need to be able to trust that when we, as members of parliament, represent ourselves in this place and out in the community we do so in a way that respects those rights. That's what Labor compromised, and they're proud of it. I remind every Australian: Labor is proud of scaring people and proud of this 'Mediscare' campaign.

An election is defined as:

A formal and organised choice—

a choice—

by a vote of a person for a political office or other position.

A particularly important part of that definition is 'a person'. It implies that a person has made up their own mind through free will, and that their vote is their own to exercise as they see fit. That's the important part of our democracy. But when they're scared, fed dishonest information and deliberately misled, that doesn't allow that fairness; it doesn't fit the fairness test at all. I know in ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy, the people themselves voted on legislation. It was a direct democracy. In modern times, this has obviously evolved, as populations have grown, to the electors choosing representatives to make decisions on their behalf—that is, a representative democracy. However, when we take it back, the essence of democracy is still the integrity of that individual's vote. It's that very precious thing that people through the centuries have fought and died for: the freedom to cast a vote unhindered. It was why my mother's husband fought and died in New Guinea. I take that right to the individual's vote seriously. Clearly, Labor treats it with contempt in order to scare vulnerable people.

People have the right to seek and receive information on who they should vote for. Over time, as political parties have evolved, they have tried to persuade people to vote for a candidate representing a particular party. In the early days, there were no rules on what could be said by parties or organisations about other candidates. So, clearly, the rules were put in place for a reason: so that those people, whose precious votes matter, could make the best decision for themselves and could make a clear decision. We see ads on TV and other media, such as printed material, and at the very end of those ads we see or hear said words. Those words make sure that voters know who paid for the ads—whether it was a political party or an entity like a trade union or GetUp!—so that they know who is trying to persuade them to vote for a particular party or candidate. It's a very important part of our electoral law and the absolute protection that voters need. But this approach by Labor, using robocalls and targeting people on the basis of what was an outright lie, was just appalling. These calls were made without authorisation and were deliberately deceptive. That's why this legislation is so important.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters looked into this, and their terms of reference included all aspects of the federal election. They took evidence from political parties and made a number of recommendations to strengthen the legislation around the requirement for authorising communications. Their report is where this legislation has its roots. We are putting the committee's recommendations into law to protect democracy and to protect that precious vote and the right of the individual to make a clear and informed decision. That is what we need to protect.

I read some of the comments made within the report. The Greens actually stated that they recognised the importance of voters being aware of the source of party, candidate and third-party communications. They believed that the overarching requirement is that the voter who reads or views a communications is aware of who it comes from. Now, that's reasonable.

The director of the Liberal Party gave evidence and said, 'Well, you should be able to work out who is raising an issue with you and what they're saying. It gives an elector some notice and they can make judgements about it, in the same way they can with a TV ad, a radio ad, a mail piece or anything similar online that has money behind it.' Again, that is a very reasonable position and in line with this legislation. The Labor Party said in its submission, 'The purpose of authorisation is to allow electors to identify the person responsible for printing or broadcasting.' However, they did add that they would be extremely concerned by any proposal to impose stricter regulations on any individual participant or class of participants in an election campaign—for example, GetUp!, trade unions and stakeholders. In other words, Labor wants to perpetuate the process of being able to provide deliberately misleading and dishonest information to voters. They want to continue to be able to misrepresent themselves and claim to be someone similar to Medicare. They want to scare vulnerable people yet again. Of course, what we saw was deliberately misleading information. It was a lack of truth. It was absolute deception and it compromised the individual's targeted right to a free and fair election.

Even if we make this law, I am concerned about what Labor will do from here. When ACTU Secretary Sally McManus talked about the law, she said, 'But when it's unjust, I don't think there's a problem about breaking it.' So we could well see more of that even with this law; that the unions and Labor could well see they are justified in breaking the law, that laws in Australia don't matter. They only matter if they think they're right or they believe in it, otherwise they don't matter—'We'll just do whatever we want.' Imagine if everybody in our community had that view and simply disregarded the laws that were inconvenient or didn't fit their particular agenda, as Labor does. Clearly, with Labor opposing this bill, this is a very sad day for democracy because that's what this is about—it's simple.

To be proud and boast about undermining democracy, as Labor has, is an absolute scandal; it's a scandal. I tend to believe that people come here to represent their electorates. They come here to represent very good people from all walks of life. What we are here to do is to protect the very rights of those people in this place. That's what we are here to do as members of parliament. It just beggars belief that Labor would not support that right of the individual and their access to accurate information so that they can make an informed decision, irrespective of which way that decision goes.

We all know in politics that governments change continually, but in those changes what we do want to see are free and fair elections. We need to constantly and vigorously uphold the rights of the individual to that precious vote. I was in Cambodia some years ago with the United Nations to observe the election—and of course we know the history of Cambodia. One of the things that has to happen in elections there is that electors have to dip their finger in indelible ink to prove that they've only voted once. Because they are a relatively new democracy, one of the greatest excitements for those people coming out of the election booths was to talk to me with my UN badge on and show me their finger to prove that they had voted. They hadn't had the right to vote for so long and they were so extraordinarily proud of the right to vote and the fact that they had been able to have their say. Now, I tend to think that at times we take this right for granted in Australia. But I would say to every Australian: take this as your inherent responsibility and opportunity. Take this right to vote as something that our men and women of the Defence Force work for diligently, overseas and here—we send them out on deployments to protect democratic rights in Australia. The fact that our greatest war grave is not in Australia shows that Australia takes up the fight for our freedoms and democracy—and for the freedoms and democracy of other countries around the world. This is a very, very good reason. It is one of the reasons I thought that we were all here—that is, to protect those rights and those freedoms. I see the freedom of having access to accurate information—not being deliberately misled—as a core part of the responsibilities of each one of us in this place. I take it seriously. Coalition members take it seriously. But clearly, you cannot again trust Labor.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on this bill, the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. As elected representatives, we must all agree that the Australian voter is entitled to be able to identify with confidence who it is that is providing electoral information to them. Knowing the source of that information allows voters to fully assess that information and consider it in the right context. It helps voters make a properly informed decision. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case.

By amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and related legislation, the bill seeks: to ensure electoral communication is clearly authorised, irrespective of how it is communicated; to provide for political debate to not only be open but also transparent; and to harmonise authorisation requirements across different communication channels, cutting red tape for those who seek to contribute to public debate, while at the same time striking an appropriate balance to protect free and open debate and discussion.

These reforms reflect concerns in the community and in the submissions to and considerations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Recognising there is often a need to be expedient in addressing issues of political miscommunication, particularly during an election, the Australian Electoral Commission will have new enforcement options available to it, including enforceable undertakings and more substantial fines. Applying a civil penalty regime will make enforcement more effective and make political players more accountable.

The government intends to move an amendment to this bill in the consideration in detail stage. The effect of this amendment is to remove schedule 2 of the bill, which concerns the criminalisation of impersonating a Commonwealth entity under the Criminal Code. The government remains committed to legislating to criminalise the impersonation of a Commonwealth entity. Separate legislation will deal with this issue in the future. The changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act proposed in this bill will not take effect until six months after royal assent, and therefore will not affect the Australian marriage law postal survey.

Once again, I thank all members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.