Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do not know if a compliment from Senator Hutchins is something that necessarily helps a new senator on this side of the table; however, I will correct him by saying that I often get called a neoliberal rather than a liberal. Senator Hutchins has undertaken to link what was a bipartisan report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to a slur on the Liberal Party. I assume that Senator Hutchins will also at some point get up and defend the state of the New South Wales Labor Party and the endemic corruption that seems to have existed therein over decades, but today is not the time for that discussion, just as it is not the time for the discussion of the 2004 election in the electorate of Greenway.

Going to the actual report that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters brought down: there is no-one on this side of the chamber who does not condemn the activities that are covered by this report. That is one of the reasons that the report was bipartisan, and I will go into that in more detail shortly. It is also the reason—and I want to put this on the record—the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party acted instantly upon these events being made public. Senator Hutchins pointed out there was a political cost to the Liberal Party when these events were made public and the reality is that there was a political price. The people who undertook these activities brought shame on themselves and did not act in the interests of the thousands of Liberal Party members and volunteers who work hard in election campaigns around the country. I challenge Senator Hutchins, after all the slurs upon the New South Wales Liberal Party he just tried to get into Hansard, to find a member of this parliament, either in the Senate or the other place, who would in any way defend those activities. Because he simply will not. That is reflected in the conduct and findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into this issue.

I personally condemn those activities. They have no place in Australian behaviour, or, particularly, in Australian politics. I seek to ensure that the public record reflects that the Labor Party in New South Wales took immediate action against those people when those activities became known. There is no evidence whatsoever, there was no evidence displayed in the court case, that there was any encouragement of, condoning of or even implicit permission for this sort of behaviour. Those people will be condemned because the public record reflects that.

I do not want to go into Senator Hutchins’s reflections upon the trial. I do not think that this is the place to do that. But that does lead me to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I was not present at the hearing but I am a member of the committee. The inquiry was conducted with a view to examining whether the current provisions in the Electoral Act are sufficient to deter and punish this kind of behaviour. Such behaviour needs to be strongly condemned and there needs to be a deterrent to prevent it from occurring again.

This report brings down some recommendations to change the Electoral Act. They change the burden for a defendant to make it an offence of strict liability. They dramatically increase the penalties but they do not provide for incarceration as a sentencing option. The reality of that—and it reflects the government’s view as well as the opposition’s—is that there is very little prospect of someone actually being sent to prison for this sort of offence. But there has been a substantial increase in the penalty provisions that apply for such an offence, and, by making it a strict liability offence, saying that one did not necessarily know what they were doing is not going to be a defence.

Australia has a very proud record. One of the reasons these events stood out was that they are so rare. As I said earlier, the Liberal Party acted immediately against the people involved in these events. The government and the opposition have issued a bipartisan report with recommendations to amend the Electoral Act to provide greater deterrents and greater penalties for such actions if they occur again. We hope—I assume on both sides—that we never see something like this again.

Going back to Senator Hutchins’s comments, I think it is particularly inappropriate to try and link in some way the actions of a few irresponsible people to a previous election. Senator Hutchins had every opportunity, if he had wished to, to bring accusations of breaches of the Electoral Act against people who he implied were involved in the 2004 election campaign. I was not involved in that campaign directly, being new to this place, but, as far as I am aware, no evidence has been brought forward to a committee. His comments were nothing but a slur against people—I will not repeat his accusation.

These events were not a proud moment in Australian electoral history. They were not in any way, however, symbolic of the thousands of volunteers—on both sides, but particularly on our side of politics in this case—that get involved in day-to-day election and political activities. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report recommends some changes to ensure that there are greater deterrents and there is greater punishment for people who undertake such activity.

Again, Senator Hutchins, I do not think it was appropriate to talk about other election campaigns—nor was it appropriate to reflect on the particular trial and the fact that certain people were convicted and certain people were not. This report reflects well on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, for the very reason that it is bipartisan. I think it will be of interest to those who want a more considered view of the events of the Lindsay election in 2007.