Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens have long supported efforts to minimise foreign influence on our democracy, whether through regulating donations from foreign entities, addressing online disinformation, or calling out investor-state dispute settlement clauses in free trade agreements that stop the Australian government acting in the interests of Australians.

We will not oppose the referral proposed by this motion, but we are not convinced there's any justification for a standalone inquiry into foreign interference in the context of the referendum. It is an issue that's much more appropriately dealt with through a broad review of foreign influence over the political process. As I'll set out shortly, many of these issues are already being investigated, and a standalone inquiry risks ad hoc solutions rather than comprehensive ones.

The Australian Greens did not oppose the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act, also known as the EFDR act, five years ago once the chilling effect of the original bill on public interest advocacy was defeated. But we did point out at that time that the bill would fail to achieve its ostensible purpose of preventing foreign interference unless it included stronger measures to reduce the corrupting influence of all political donations. Our concerns were confirmed by the fourth-year review of those changes conducted by JSCEM last year.

Expert witnesses to the review said the EFDR act was not effectively curtailing foreign influence, given ongoing opportunities for foreign companies and individuals to channel donations through Australian residents or local companies. The then government pointed to anti-avoidance provisions, but Professor Anne Twomey said:

… it is not an anti-avoidance issue and it's not a question of the AEC having the ability to do anything; it is simply the way the act operates. I'm sure all of us would think it would be preferable if it didn't operate in that way. But, as I pointed out, the reason it does is constitutional constraints that are a result of earlier High Court decisions; and given that we can't get around them without an amendment to the Constitution, and we have to live with them, the only way I can see of reducing foreign influence is by reducing everybody's influence.

The Australian Greens agree: the clearest way to minimise the influence of foreign donations is to limit the influence of all political donations. Experts have said it and experts will keep saying it.

But despite these concerns, the then Liberal-chaired committee held:

… that the relevant parts of the Act are working effectively … The Australian political system continues to be a successful exemplar democracy, that is looked on with admiration by many others around the world.

And no changes were made.

The Greens have consistently called for all political donations over $1,000 to be disclosed in real time so that the voters can see who is funding campaigns. And that is in fact Labor's own policy the last time I checked. Yet neither Labor or the Liberals supported the Greens amendments just last week to reduce the donations threshold or to require real-time disclosure of donations during the referendum. It's almost as though the coalition wants to exploit the public's appetite for more transparency and fears around the foreign interference and to point to foreign donations as the bad guy, rather than good old-fashioned domestic donations from corporate mates and lobbyists and the cosy relationship between the big parties and industry.

So, what are the issues that this motion wants us to investigate? The motion proposes to ask the Finance and Public Administration Committee to look at measures to protect against foreign actors seeking to influence the outcome or public debate—and remember, this is in relation to the referendum—and the potential application of foreign donation laws to the referendum and its participants. Well, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill that we passed in this place last week included provisions that brought the referendum into line with existing electoral laws, prohibiting the authorisation of materials by foreign campaigners, preventing the giving or receiving of gifts over $100 from foreign entities, and restricting referendum spending by foreign entities.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, or JSCEM, examined the bill and the issues referred to in the motion, including the application of the Foreign Interference Transparency Scheme. The bill was subject to rigorous—some might say ad nauseam—debate in the Senate last week that went to those concerns. The AEC has mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with restrictions on foreign interference, and there is nothing to suggest that those compliance measures will apply any differently to disclosures during the referendum.

The motion nonetheless also invites the FPA committee to examine detection, mitigation and obstruction of potential dissemination of disinformation, including via social media. There is already an FPA committee inquiring into foreign influence through social media. That inquiry is ongoing and is due to report in August of this year. It is unclear why any questions that the Liberals seek to have answered about those issues will not already be considered through that inquiry and why a referendum-specific inquiry is required. The JSCEM inquiry into the 2022 election is already examining the broader issues of disinformation in political communications and the need for truth in political advertising. The Greens want to see those measures in place, and we wanted to see those measures in place prior to the referendum. That's why we moved amendments to that effect last week—and sadly got no support from the large parties.

But without such laws applying to all political communications, there's no reason to single out communications about the referendum for a separate inquiry. It's standard practice for the minister to invite JSCEM to review the conduct of an election to identify any issues that have arisen. The same should happen with this referendum. As I said at the outset, the Greens support measures to address any undue influence on our democracy, whether that's from foreign actors or big local donors. But I'll repeat the words of Professor Anne Twomey: 'The only way I can see of reducing foreign influence is by reducing everybody's influence.' Now, we will not stand in the way of this inquiry, but it is abundantly clear that we need action on donation reform, not yet another inquiry. We'd rather not waste more time and resources getting the same experts to say the same things. Instead, let's listen to them and make some changes. Unfortunately, the referendum bill debate last week was an exercise in ignoring what the experts have said and delaying action.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters took evidence about the importance of increasing enrolment and engagement in the referendum, particularly for First Nations and other disenfranchised communities. We heard from the Australian Electoral Commission, from land councils, from academics and from advocates. Everyone talked about the need for action to maximise the number of people who could vote. Everyone recommended measures to boost enrolment and voter turnout, including on-the-day enrolment and continuing the secure phone voting—also amendments that the Greens moved last week that did not receive the support of either of the big parties.

We've heard over and over from stakeholders that on-the-day enrolment and provisional voting will have a significant impact on the number of people who are able to cast a vote on referendum day. And we heard that the provisional voting measures manage any risk of fraud by ensuring that voters are added to the formal count only after the usual checks are made by the AEC. Finally, we had a JSCEM report that accepted that evidence and recommended measures to increase enrolment.

JSCEM supported that change. The Australian Electoral Commission supported that change. The evidence from states and territories who already have on-the-day enrolment supported that change. There was absolutely no rational argument against making that change, which would redress decades of disenfranchisement and give the most number of people the chance to vote in the referendum. Yet both the Labor Party and the coalition refused to make that change. They said it needed more consideration. The JSCEM would consider it, again, at a later date—another inquiry rather than action.

Repeated inquiries into constitutional reform and referenda have recommended scrapping or modernising the provisions for preparing the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets. Experts consistently called, across three separate inquiries, for an independent panel to review the text or other measures to ensure that the content was clear and accurate. Yet both the Labor Party and the coalition voted against amendments put forward by my crossbench colleagues to achieve exactly that. What is the point of yet more inquiries when we already know the answers and you just don't like them?

This referendum is a historic opportunity to give voice to First Nations communities on decisions that affect them and to put Australia on a path to treaty and to truth telling. It's an opportunity to right past wrongs and the ongoing impacts of colonisation, to actually close the gap and embed self-determination. That's what the focus should be.

As I said, the Greens will not oppose this inquiry, but we do question the need for it. The answer to tackling undue influence is strong donations reform across the board. Let's just get on and do it.