Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the third interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. As the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I was very proud of this bipartisan report that the committee presented. I believe that in every functional and robust democracy an effective electoral management body is essential to conduct free and fair elections. Australia is absolutely no exception to that. The Australian Electoral Commission serves as our electoral management body and, by virtue of this, holds a crucial role in maintaining and supporting our representative democracy.

Today I speak on the tabling of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters third interim report on the last federal election. As the chair of the committee, I am extremely proud of this bipartisan report. It will ensure that the AEC, as the democratic institution responsible for maintaining an impartial and independent electoral system, is equipped with the necessary tools and resources to ensure the efficient maintenance of our elections. Regardless of whether voters like or dislike the outcome of an election, they must have ultimate confidence in the process itself. Even if they don't like the outcome, they should be able to trust and understand that it represents the majority will of Australian voters and that the results, declared by the AEC, accurately represent the votes cast by Australian voters.

The AEC's mandate is to maintain an impartial and independent electoral system. It is therefore imperative that the health, capabilities and resources of the commission never be taken for granted or held hostage to partisan politics in this parliament. Throughout the conduct of this inquiry, it was brought to the committee's attention that various aspects of the Electoral Act are inadequate in keeping pace with and regulating the current political environment. Additionally, with the rapid and continual evolution and development of modern technology, the AEC's capability to monitor and oversee elections has, at times, been insufficient to keep pace with the change in society.

The committee was of the view that there is a significant scope for technological improvements and to replace many of the very time-consuming and inefficient manual handling processes. Additionally, upgrades to the AEC's core IT systems are long overdue and pose potential risks to the integrity of elections. Indeed, we heard that some of the Electoral Commission's systems are still DOS based. Successive governments have not pursued reform and modernisation of the AEC, and consequently the commission today has had limited capacity to modernise and to evolve with evolving times. The committee heard that change is now imperative to maintain confidence not only in the AEC but also in the integrity of the conduct of our democratic elections. Quite clearly, the AEC needs additional resourcing to keep pace with changes.

The committee was particularly conscious of recent events both domestically and overseas, including the denial-of-service attacks on the Australian Bureau of Statistics and speculation on attempts to influence the United States' last federal election by foreign actors. These attacks clearly indicate that the threat of cybersecurity attacks is very real and is an issue that we must deal with. Such threats to the Australian electoral processes must be effectively identified and mitigated as much as possible.

In addition to the committee's inquiry, the AEC also recognised the necessity of reviewing the commission's election-planning processes and its delivery, but also of seeking new opportunities for modernisation and innovative reforms to deliver elections.

This interim report provides a suite of recommendations for reform to assist and supplement the AEC to address some of the most urgent impediments to its ability to implement organisational change. The committee does, however, acknowledge that, while these forms will provide much-needed improvements, they will not in and of themselves create an organisation that is genuinely transformational in nature. The task of transforming the AEC into an organisation that is able to continuously adapt to meet its mandate in a rapidly-evolving world will take ongoing bipartisan support and oversight. The committee's five recommendations are all designed to provide the AEC with that immediate support.

Whilst the recommendations represent the starting point, the committee understands that modernising the AEC will be a continuous and ongoing process. There are evolving challenges such as the influence of foreign actors, the changing landscape of political campaigning and cybersecurity threats that now require much closer scrutiny. To ensure that these recommendations achieve the objectives and set out targets, the committee has further recommended that the commission update the committee biannually to monitor developments on a more ongoing basis. The committee commends the AEC for its willingness to adopt the Keelty reforms and for its proactive efforts in identifying ways of transforming culture and processes. As the AEC is limited by outdated legislative requirements, it is now the parliament's responsibility to support legislative change to achieve this.

In concluding my remarks on this report, I also thank all of those who made submissions and the secretariat staff, and I also acknowledge all of the members of the committee for their very good will and their genuine commitment to ensuring the stability and strength of the Australian electoral processes and the AEC. I acknowledge the contributions of my colleague Senator Ketter as one of the members of the committee in that process.

In concluding my comments, I will just note that the committee has now moved from this report into its fourth interim report on elections and donations. As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I was dismayed to see that a motion of the Greens to establish a Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations was passed by this chamber today. I see no redeeming features in this particular select committee. It is, I believe, an attempt to undermine the processes of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and our bipartisan inquiries, and, up until today, our very strong bipartisan approach to the very important issue of reforming the Australian political donations system here in Australia.

I would also note that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which has successfully resulted in many, many bipartisan recommendations for reform, including this third report, has Senator Lee Rhiannon from the Greens as a member. While Senator Rhiannon and I might not very often agree on policy, I commend Senator Rhiannon for her commitment, dedication and willingness to look into and to support the best interests of the Electoral Commission and the integrity of our electoral processes.

When I saw this select committee today, I was aghast that the Greens would, I believe, use a joint Senate select committee to so egregiously bring whatever fighting is going on with the Greens and with Senator Rhiannon into this chamber and to this process. No good can come of having a select committee on at the same time and on the same issue as the bipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I would like to seek leave to continue my remarks on that report.

Leave granted.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Senator Reynolds, who does an exceptional and, I think, quite amazing job in addressing the issues which the committee is inquiring into—in this instance, the 2016 election, in all of its facets. As Senator Reynolds mentioned, the committee moves on in a very even, balanced and bipartisan way under the senator's leadership, to look at foreign donations or donations generally to political parties.

I, too, was absolutely disgusted—Senator Reynolds is noted for her conciliatory approach, which is not always my approach—that the Nick Xenophon Team would vote today with the Greens and the Labor Party to set up this parallel committee. You don't expect anything better from the Greens and the Labor Party. They know that a fair committee under someone with balanced leadership, like Senator Reynolds, will look into the real issues.

It is a committee that comprises members from all political parties—as Senator Reynolds mentioned—even Senator Rhiannon, who we don't often agree with on policy issues. But I always admire Senator Rhiannon because at least she is true to her cause. She doesn't pretend to be anything but what she is. Clearly, that doesn't go over well with the Greens' political party. They have ostracised her. I can't remember when Senator Rhiannon was last given a question when the Greens have the call. It seems to me—and we don't want to get overly enthused on conspiracy theories—that one of the reasons for setting up this dodgy, if I might say, select committee to inquire into exactly the same thing as the joint standing committee is looking into, is that the Greens don't trust Senator Rhiannon to represent their interests anymore in that particular committee. So, as a result, the Greens, the Labor Party and Senator Xenophon and his team have agreed to use Senate resources, very limited as they are. Mr President, you can't comment, and neither can the Clerk sitting at the table, but we know that Senate resources are limited. There are far too many committees of the Senate set up for purely political purposes by the Greens and the Labor Party majority in this chamber, simply to operate as political voices for the Greens, the Labor Party and their left-wing agenda.

I am so disappointed—well, I am disgusted. 'Disappointed' is not strong enough. I am so disgusted with Senator Xenophon, who wants to be all things to all men and yet supports this ridiculous setting up of a committee of the Senate to inquire into exactly the same things, exactly the same terms of reference, as the joint standing committee. The joint standing committee has been in operation as long as I have been in parliament, and that's now 27 years. It is an institution in this parliament, and, whether it's chaired by someone as erudite and balanced as Senator Reynolds or it's chaired by a Labor chairman, it's always managed to approach its duties in a balanced, fair way, getting to the facts.

I haven't always agreed with its conclusions, because very often the Labor Party will stop any real recommendations in relation to personal identification in the electoral process. Everybody from the Federal Police down will tell you that, unless we can have a method of ensuring that people are who they say they are—but for some reason the Labor Party never want to deal with that. But, apart from that, my experience over the years is that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has performed a real purpose. It's a respected institution of this parliament.

Yet today we have the Greens and the Labor Party, as you'd expect, setting up this—I can only call it dodgy, sorry—dodgy committee of the Senate to inquire into exactly the same things. If it were doing anything new, anything different, that couldn't be done by the joint standing committee, then you might understand it. The terms of reference are slightly different, varied for clever reasons, but what the committee will look at will be exactly the same as the joint standing committee was about to start work on tomorrow morning.

I know that Senator Reynolds had called a meeting to set the parameters from all parties, from Senator Rhiannon, from the Greens; from the Labor Party; and from our side of politics, and I think the National Party were invited. They sometimes have a different view to us Liberals. Everyone was there. Senator Reynolds wanted to make sure that this was a non-political committee and that we actually looked at the real issues. Senator Ketter, who's in the chamber, is part of that committee. Senator Ketter, who doesn't often get involved in some of the shenanigans of the Greens and his colleagues in the Labor Party, understands that this is a serious committee looking for serious resolutions, serious outcomes, to issues that the parliament and Australians generally need to address.

Yet here we have this absolutely dodgy approach from the Greens, orchestrated by the Greens to get back at Senator Rhiannon, obviously, supported by the Labor Party—and I expect that. I've been here long enough to know that you cannot expect anything else. But Senator Xenophon always claims to be the voice of reason, the one who's so responsible, so even, so wanting to get a result, who doesn't want to play politics, and here he is, giving to the Greens and the Labor Party the majority to set up this dodgy committee to inquire into exactly the same areas, the same questions, as the respected joint standing committee is already investigating.

I would hope—someone said to me that they thought Senator Xenophon had been misled as to the direction of this committee today. If that is true—I can't remember who said that to me, and I'm not sure if it is true, but if it is true—then Senator Xenophon should be the one who comes to this chamber next time we meet and says he was misled on what that Senate select committee was all about. We should have another vote on it, and he should put his efforts into the joint select committee.

I have to say that, as I go around many inquiries set up by the Greens and the Labor Party and Xenophon in this chamber, I find that very rarely is anyone from the Greens political party attending. Very rarely, or never, is the Xenophon party there. Just going back to last Friday, it's a case in point. We had an inquiry set up by the Greens, Labor and Xenophon on the North Australia Infrastructure Facility. The inquiry finished and there was never anyone from the Xenophon party at the inquiry, even though they had provided their numbers to set it up.

What a dodgy inquiry that was. The Greens were there for a little while, but then they disappeared. They hear the witnesses they choose to call, but when the department comes along or someone else comes along to give a contrary view, the Greens all leave. This brings the whole committee system into disrepute. This is something I have spoken about often in this chamber, because I despair at the way that Senate committees are now being used for purely political purposes when, years ago, they were serious exercises that people used to respect and take notice of. Regrettably, that's not the case today.

I've digressed slightly from the issue before us. I support this report by the Joint Standing Committee on the 2016 election, or another aspect of it. It's well thought through, as you'd expect with Senator Reynolds as the chair. I know that the senators will use this report properly, because they know they can have confidence in the recommendations contained in the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.