James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition holds that electoral changes ought to be assessed on four key principles: fair, open and transparent elections; equal treatment of all political participants; freedom of political communication and participation without fear of retribution; and recognition of freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as fundamental to free elections. Australia's success as a liberal democracy is reliant on the effective operation of the Australian Electoral Commission and the federal government more broadly to satisfy and uphold these four principles. Ensuring that Australians have continued faith in the electoral system is paramount to Australians' faith in its institutions of government.

The coalition will not support attempts to legislate amendments to the Electoral Act that are targeted at supporting certain political participants or types of political participants. Rather, the coalition contends that all parties and candidates ought to be treated equally and that legislation ought to aim to encourage political participation, not thwart it with regulation. Indeed, legislation ought to improve our democracy for all Australians, not support partisan interest.

As such, on behalf of the coalition, I say that this wide-ranging, ideological thought bubble of a bill proposed by the crossbench reads more like a suggestion at the end of a student union article than a piece of federal legislation. The 60 pages of partisanship from this crossbench are recognised by the coalition as a gerrymander. This bill is a 'teal-mander'. This bill wants laws that aim to prohibit what Australian citizens can and cannot say during the political process, it wants laws that prohibit who can and who cannot participate in the political process and it wants to increase the number of territory senators, because that's what the people of Australia are crying out for at the moment: 'We want more politicians, we want them now, we want them to get high salaries and we want them to stay in Canberra.'

The coalition wants more diversity in our political process. Senator David Pocock said that one individual should not be able to influence the outcome of an election. This is where we fundamentally disagree. One individual does determine the outcome of an election. That's the voter. There are millions of them, and what we should be doing in this building is encouraging the voter to have as much choice as possible and not allowing the left-wing majority to set up a 'teal-mander' that determines what voters can and cannot hear.

The coalition holds that freedom of speech is an inalienable right of the Australian people; the crossbench does not. The crossbench believes in freedom of speech only if that speech reinforces their own views. The coalition strongly opposes the introduction of measures that purport to adjudicate truth in political advertising or political discourse. Freedom of speech and the contestability of ideas among political parties, political candidates and voters are necessary. Indeed, they are a strong requirement for a healthy liberal democracy. Distinguishing among truth, opinion and falseness in the context of electoral matters is an inherently subjective process and one that is best left to those who know. And that is the Australian people. The federal government and its bureaucracy, no matter how independent or qualified they are or how many degrees they have, have neither the scope nor the ability to adjudicate truth in election campaigns. It is inappropriate for any government body to censor political parties and candidates in their communications, let alone censor the Australian people, as this bill aims to do.

Part 3 of this bill states:

A person must not print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, electoral matter or referendum matter if the matter contains a statement in relation to a matter of fact (including an implied statement) that is:

(a) misleading or deceptive to a material extent; or

(b) likely to mislead or deceive to a material extent.

Let the voters decide that. Don't let a bunch of bureaucrats decide that. Let the voters determine what is correct and what is not correct. The crossbench wants to prohibit not only what a political party can say but also what a person can say relating to electoral matters. This mob want to censor your Facebook, your Instagram and anything that you communicate out there, because they don't like what you say. They want you to put forward only arguments and suggestions that agree with their very swivel-eyed view of the world.

Later in the bill the crossbench requires that the Australian Electoral Commission be the body that arbitrates what political parties can do or say, but it doesn't say what role the Australian people should have in that process. Just think about this in terms of how elections are run. The body tasked with ensuring that the Australian people uphold their belief in our electoral system is now going to be tasked with telling the Australian people what they can and cannot say. Then this body is going to be tasked with punishing Australians who breach such regulations. This is not truth in political advertising. This is a prohibition on the freedom of speech.

So what's going to happen? Are the teals going to set up a teal police force to go around the country and snoop into people's Facebook pages, snoop into what candidates are saying and, with a giant paddy wagon, a teal coloured paddy wagon, arrest people because they've put forward views, ideas or suggestions that the teals have an issue with? Indeed, the electoral commissioner himself said:

As for truth in advertising, I don't want to advise parliament. If parliament tells us to do something, we'll do it. But I use this opportunity to point out that truth in advertising was actually part of the Electoral Act when it was first passed in '84. It lasted for about eight months before it was removed for being unworkable. The joint standing committee considered this again in '97 and decided not to make that recommendation as part of its considerations. They said that they were worried about the impact on the neutrality of the AEC.

So there it is. The electoral commissioner, a wise, independent, politically neutral person, does not want a bar of truth in political advertising or it to go anywhere near the AEC because Commissioner Rogers understands the damage that will fall upon the AEC should it suddenly become this teal police force that's responsible for charging Australians who breach freedom of speech.

Australia's democracy and its elections should remain a marketplace of ideas. If candidates, political parties or Australian citizens make statements or release positions that are viewed as inaccurate, it is the role of the media, civil society and other political actors to contest such statements, not prohibit them. This country is built upon the principle of freedom of speech, and now we have proposals before this Senate that wish to limit freedom of speech. The schedule attached to this bill is ill thought out. No country strengthens its democracy by censoring its political parties, let alone censoring its own citizens. The coalition believes in the inalienable right of all Australians to be free and to speak their mind. This bill attacks that right.

Another aspect of this bill that the coalition strongly opposes is its aim to prohibit donations from groups that the crossbench cabal classify as entities that inflict social harm for profit, and they list tobacco, fossil fuel, gambling and liquor business entities. What they're saying is that Kev who runs my local pub—the Darling Downs Hotel, the Sandy Creek Pub, which is the de facto community centre for my district of Queensland—can't give money to a political party. I don't know who Kev votes for; that's his business. But this bill wants to stop a publican, who employs locals, from giving money to a political party. How completely mad and un-Australian is this! Not only do the teals want to stop people from having freedom of speech; they want to stop people from giving money to a political cause of their choosing. That is just wrong. It also poses the question: How do we determine what groups are committing social harm? How do you define social harm? Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?

Surely we're on a slippery slope here. Soon the teals, because they're a bunch of vegetarians and vegans, will want to ban butcher shops. They won't want butchers donating money, because of the social harm of the meat industry.

Senator Cadell talked about farmers. We know that the Greens and the teals don't like farmers; they don't like the agricultural industry. They'll want to stop farmers from giving money because the evil farmers are clearing land and putting all the CO2 into the air, with their cattle. This is a slippery slope, and this is why this side of the chamber fundamentally believes in freedom, the freedom of speech and the freedom to give money. If candidates or political parties accept donations from certain groups, it is up to those candidates or political parties to be held accountable for those donations. And those donations are released on a regular basis. People can see who gives money to which candidate or which political party. Good. That should be the case. We believe in transparency, but we do not believe that any group should be restricted from giving money on the basis of a nebulous term called 'social harm'.

I know how the Greens operate. The Greens political party is a horrible political party. They are an un-Australian political party. We see how they fail to condemn the vandalism of a sacred site in this country. This Greens political party wants to stop farmers and publicans from giving money to a political party, but they won't condemn the vandalism of the Australian War Memorial. This is where we are in this country. There is a fight on. There is a fight on for those who are pro Australia, for those who believe that the principles that uphold our Constitution and the principles that uphold our Liberal democracy are the principles that have made Australia the great country that it is today. Yes, we can always be a better country; yes, we can always do things better; and, yes, our history is not perfect, but, for this parliament to suddenly decide to restrict freedom of speech means that those men and women whose names are on the War Memorial a couple of kilometres from where I speak, who gave their lives for freedom of speech, what sacrifice have they made when it means that this building, this chamber, wishes to limit those freedoms?

Of course, the Greens political party don't care because they're quite happy for war memorials to be defiled, because the Greens political party are hypocrites. They will abuse the freedoms that Australians have died for in order to take away those freedoms from current Australians. The coalition will always look at proposals to enhance Australia's democracy, but we will not support any proposals that will bring in a financial gerrymander or a political gerrymander or a 'tealmander' that limits the ability of one side of politics or a class of voters to participate in our Liberal democracy.