Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Let me share with Senator Cormann the light relief of the humour at this stage in the consideration. It was possibly helpful. I will indicate the opposition's position here, but then I will go on to some of the concerns that were canvassed earlier in the general discussion.

The opposition will not be supporting these amendments. These amendments relate to the party logos being printed on ballot papers. The idea of having party logos printed on ballot papers appears to have been a thought bubble. I am not sure how it arose between the government and the Greens in their discussions. But the policy rationale and how any of the issues and concerns that JSCEM had previously raised had been addressed came, in some way, to the 2016 JSCEM investigation by osmosis.

I asked these questions earlier, and Senator Cormann referred to some elements of the explanatory memorandum which talked about the copyright issues in terms of there being a copyright matter between two political parties. But we are still at a loss as to how the AEC is going to execute this function. How will the AEC necessarily know if there is a copyright issue? It is not within the AEC's current purview to understand these types of copyright matters. How is it proposed that they will be addressed?

In paragraph 4.20 of the majority JSCEM report it states:

The Committee is pleased that these issues—

that the earlier JSCEM inquiry had raised—

have been addressed to the Government’s satisfaction …

The problem is that we have had no description of what these issues are and how, indeed, they have been addressed. The point made at paragraph 4.19 on party logos in the committee's 2016 report highlights that when JSCEM previously considered this issue:

… it was reluctant to recommend for the inclusion of party logos on ballot papers without having an opportunity to assess the associated copyright and printing ramifications.

Now, that point is made. But the very next point is just simply:

The Committee is pleased that these issues have been addressed to the Government’s satisfaction…

You might assume that they have, if they have been put in the bill, but there has certainly been no competent description about how those matters have been addressed. It simply points out, in the explanatory memorandum, that somehow, in ways that we are yet to understand, the AEC will adopt a new role assessing copyright matters. But what about the other issues about printing ramifications? Sure, we have had references to how we will proceed in black and white—so that wonderful Greens logo is now going to adopt a skivvy and become black—but beyond that the description of what the issues are and how they have arisen through this deal are certainly lacking at this point.

But at the moment we are addressing Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments. What I will say here, which is similar to the point I just made about this overall proposal, is that we are not satisfied that this idea has been subject to any proper analysis. Senator Leyonhjelm's concerns are worthy of consideration, but without that analysis Labor cannot support this amendment on this occasion.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7868 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Rhiannon, did you seek to ask a question at this point?