Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—At the request of Senator Di Natale, I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8222 together:

( 1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

3. Schedule 2    The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Page 45 (after line 5), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Lowering the Voting Age

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

1 Subsection 4(3)

Omit "age 16", substitute "age 14".

2 Subsection 55(2)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

3 Subsection 90B(10) (subparagraph (g)(iii) of the definition of additional information )

Omit "18", substitute "16".

4 Paragraph 93(1)(a)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

5 Paragraph 93(3)(b)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

6 Subsection 93(4)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

7 Paragraphs 95(1)(c) and (f)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

8 Paragraphs 95(6)(a) and (b)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

9 Subsection 95(7)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

10 Paragraph 95(8)(a)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

11 Paragraph 95(13)(e)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

12 Subsection 98(1)

Omit "16", substitute "14".

13 Subsection 98(3)

Omit "16", substitute "14".

14 Section 100 (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

100 Claims for age 14 enrolment

15 Paragraph 100(1)(a)

Omit "has turned 16, but is under 18, years of age", substitute "has turned 14, but is under 16, years of age".

16 Paragraph 100(1)(b)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

17 Subsection 100(2)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

18 Paragraph 108(a)

Omit "16", substitute "14".

19 Subsection 120(2) (table item 4)

Omit "16", substitute "14".

20 Paragraph 121(1)(c)

Omit "16", substitute "14".

21 Section 208(2)(b)

Omit "18", substitute "16".

22 After subsection 245(1)

Insert:

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an elector who is 16 or 17 years of age on the polling day for an election.

23 At the end of subsection 245(4)(d)

Add:

; or (e) was 16 or 17 years of age on the day of the election.

24 At the end of subsection 245(15)

Add:

Note: A person who is 16 or 17 years old is exempt from committing an offence under subsection (15). See subsection (1A).

25 Section 342

Omit "16", substitute "14".

26 Section 343(1)

Omit "16", substitute "14".

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

27 Paragraph 22(2)(b)

Omit "18 years old", substitute "16 years old".

28 After subsection 45(1)

Insert:

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an elector who is 16 or 17 years of age on the polling day of an election.

29 At the end of subsection 45(4)(d)

Add:

; or (e) was 16 or 17 years of age on the day of the election.

30 At the end of subsection 45(14)

Add:

Note: A person who is 16 and 17 years old is exempt from committing an offence under subsection (14). See subsection (1A).

The purpose of these amendments is quite straightforward, and you would hope we would all agree on it. They are amendments that lower the minimum age of a voter in an Australian federal election and referendum from 18 years to 16 years of age but keep the age of compulsory voting eligibility to standing as a federal parliamentarian at 18 years of age. That really shouldn't be something to question at this stage. Young people can work, can pay taxes, can be in the defence forces and can even get married—an issue that's well and truly in the news at the moment. They can drive a car and they can do so many things—just about everything that you can do after you're 18. So what's the problem? Surely it's time that they be given the vote. These are very straightforward amendments—ones that I'd even argue are overdue—and it's certainly changing in other countries like democracies that are collapsing, where this has been brought in. Other countries allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote and there have been good results, with youth turnout really taking off. We've seen it in Austria and Scotland, and hopefully the time will come very soon in Australia. These amendments are put forward by the Australian Greens leader, Senator Di Natale, and I highly recommend them.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting these amendments. This is clearly not a matter that is in any way related to the authorisation of electoral communications. The government does not support lowering the voting age. This is clearly a significant change to the electoral system. As far as I'm aware, it does not respond to a recommendation from the parliament's cross-party Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, whereas the bill currently before the Senate does respond to the joint standing committee recommendations to reform the authorisation of voter communication to increase the transparency and integrity of our elections. The government will not be supporting these amendments.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will also not be supporting either of the Greens amendments to this bill. While I commend the Greens for raising these important issues, it's the belief of the opposition that the issues addressed in these amendments should be considered fully and properly by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which Senator Rhiannon is, of course, a participating member. The ALP has a proud history of advocating for the extension of electoral franchise. It was the Labor government in 2012 that introduced automatic enrolment provisions, extending the right to vote to thousands of disenfranchised voters across the country. Similarly, prior to the last election, it was the Labor Party that moved to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds in this country. It's Labor's belief that if you are old enough to work, old enough to pay tax, old enough to drive and even old enough to join the military, you should be considered old enough to have your say. At the time, the Leader of the Opposition committed that a Labor government would consult on the issue appropriately prior to recommending a change by way of legislative provisions. It is still our belief that this is a substantial issue requiring appropriate consultation, and, therefore, it is not adequate to simply move an amendment to an unrelated reform package. The Labor opposition would strongly recommend that the issues canvassed by the Greens amendments be referred to the JSCEM committee, of which Senator Rhiannon is a member. She can participate on behalf of the Australian Greens and seek appropriate reform.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right now, young people are being screwed over. They're being disenfranchised from the democratic process. We have a policy that's focused on the next election, rather than the future of young people. They are, quite rightly, angry at their political leaders. When it comes to housing, the only thing that's growing faster than housing prices is the fact that most people know that they are getting royally screwed over right now. You have young people being told, 'Do well at school, thrive at university and get a job—that's the pathway to prosperity.' But these are people who are being locked out of the housing market. There is this rigged system where property investors are buying multiple properties because they get tax breaks. Of course that's something that impacts very directly on young people.

It's not just about home ownership, of course. When it comes to climate change and greenhouse pollution, we know that it's going to be future generations who are going to have to clean up the mess left by this government. It's about income inequality as well. When you look at work by the Grattan Institute, who have crunched the numbers on intergenerational inequality, you have baby boomers aged between 65 and 75 who are accruing wealth fastest—$200,000 more than that age group eight years earlier. While, if you are 25 to 35, you have been going backwards over the same period. So we've got this growing income inequality. We have complete inaction on climate change. We have young people being locked out of the housing market. We've had other reforms—for example, sniffer dogs at festivals. And the approach that's been taken in the space of digital rights means young people's online rights have been effectively taken away because of a narrow political agenda.

There are so many issues on which young people are being screwed over. Right now, if they are 16 or 17, they have no opportunity to participate in the democratic process by exercising the most precious thing that we get when we turn 18, and that is the right to vote. As Senator Rhiannon said earlier, this is something that's being reconsidered in other countries. We know that, if you are a young person in Australia, you can open a bank account, you pay taxes, you can marry, you can drive a vehicle, you can serve in the Defence Force and you're effectively independent. At the age of 16 and 17, you can do some or all of these things—yet the one thing that you can't do is vote. So we absolutely recommend this amendment to the Senate.

I have to say that it's very disappointing that the Labor Party right now are saying that they will vote against this amendment. In a speech by the opposition leader, he called for the voting age to be lowered to 16. He made that very, very explicit commitment. It was a speech to the New South Wales Young Labor conference in Sydney, where he said very explicitly that, if people aged 16 and 17 can drive, work, pay taxes, join the military and make their own choices about medical treatment, they should be allowed to vote. He said that very explicitly. Here's an opportunity to back up his own words by supporting this amendment. We would expect that the Labor Party would now join the Greens in giving young people a say in the decisions that are being made on their behalf, that are being made for them right now. I would have thought that, if this was an issue on which the opposition leader felt so strongly that he was prepared to make it the centrepiece of a speech to the Young Labor conference, the very least he would do is support an amendment that would allow it to happen. He didn't say at the time, 'We need to consult on this and determine whether this is an appropriate amendment to the Electoral Act.' What he said was that 16- and 17-year-olds should be given the right to vote. It was a very straightforward statement from the opposition leader, but it seems he's walking back from that by not supporting this amendment.

I commend this amendment to the Senate. I think it is absolutely relevant, given we've had a process with the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters looking at a range of issues around participation in democracy and, obviously, the nature of this bill. This bill goes to the issue of authorisation and other such matters which are relevant to the work of that committee—but so too is the fact that we have young people now who are being disenfranchised from the democratic process who need to be given a voice.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Although Pauline Hanson's One Nation party opposes the reduction of the voting age to 16, we do find ourselves to be in a position of agreeing with the Greens on one thing. We agree with Senator Di Natale, who says that young people are being screwed over—too right, they are. Look at energy prices right now; that's because of the Greens' policies. Look at housing prices; that's because of the Greens' policies. The Greens talk about carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It's a trace gas that's essential for all life on this planet. Everything green, except the Greens Party, depends upon carbon dioxide. That's why it's green; it's because of photosynthesis.

We have the Greens talking about a cyclone and hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere, an entirely natural event. But they're fabricating those events into being something unusual. So cyclone Irma comes across the Northern Hemisphere, and it's unusual and caused by us. We have had 10 hurricanes that have made landfall in the United States in the last 10 years. One hundred years ago, in the 1850s to 1860s, it was 27 hurricanes. That's three times as many as today. We see the Greens destroying coal and hydro, preventing the use of coal-fired power stations and hydro. That is destroying cheap energy. The Greens then talk about income inequality—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, I will bring you back to the content of the bill that we are discussing at the moment.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Temporary Chair. I'm just coming back to that now. This is nothing more than a vote grab to grab idealistic teenagers. Wait until those teenagers start earning income and start to pay bills, and then they'll see the cost of the Greens' policies. Sixteen is too young. We need to have people who have responsibility for paying bills and people who have responsibility for making serious decisions, because that is what is at stake in the elections.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8222 be agreed to.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8228 revised together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 45 (after line 5), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Polling Day Enrolment

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

1 At the end of section 98

Add:

(6) A provisional vote cast under section 235 by a person who is entitled to enrolment, but is not currently enrolled, shall qualify as a claim to enrolment under this section.

2 At the end of subsection 102(5)

Add:

(5A) If a claim under section 101 is made on the polling day for an election; then, despite subsection (4):

(a) the claim must be regarded as having been received before the start of the suspension period; and

(b) if the claimant's name is entered on the Roll in accordance with the claim, the enrolment must, in relation to any vote recorded by the claimant in an election, be regarded as having been effected before the start of the suspension period.

3 At the end of subsection 235(1)

Add:

; or (f) the person makes a claim for enrolment on the polling day of an election.

4 After subsection 235(3)

Insert:

(3A) A person mentioned in paragraph (1)(f) must present to the polling official:

(a) a claim for enrolment in accordance with section 101; and

(b) any of the following evidence as to the person's identity:

(i) if the person holds a driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory, or a law in force in Norfolk Island—that driver's licence;

(ii) if the person holds an Australian passport—that Australian passport;

(iii) an attestation as to the person's identity that is in the approved form and signed by another person who is enrolled;

(iv) any other evidence of the person's identity that is of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this paragraph.

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

5 At the end of subsection 37(1)

Add:

; or (f) the person makes a claim for enrolment on the polling day for an election.

6 After subsection 37(3)

Insert:

(3A) A person mentioned in paragraph (1)(f) must present to the polling official:

(a) a claim for enrolment in accordance with section 101 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; and

(b) any of the following evidence as to the person's identity:

(i) if the person holds a driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory, or a law in force in Norfolk Island—that driver's licence;

(ii) if the person holds an Australian passport—that Australian passport;

(iii) an attestation as to the person's identity that is in the approved form and signed by another person who is enrolled;

(iv) any other evidence of the person's identity that is of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this paragraph.

This amendment provides a mechanism whereby Australians who are eligible to vote but who might not be on the electoral role—or, alternatively, are on the role but not at the correct address—can enrol to vote or update their address at a polling centre on election day, or, if they go earlier, at an early voting centre. It's a very straightforward amendment. It basically says: if you're not enrolled or if you're enrolled at the incorrect address, you can update your enrolment details when you go to vote at a polling booth. Effectively it means that those people who, for whatever reason, don't have the correct details on the electoral role are able to update them on the day of the election.

When you've got compulsory voting you do have an obligation to make sure that people are enfranchised to vote, yet we've got something in the order of a million Australians missing from the electoral roll. Many people often don't know that there's an election until well after enrolments have closed—that's just the reality—and it disproportionately affects first-time voters, young Australians, often who move regularly. The Australian Electoral Commission found that nearly half of all 18-year-olds weren't on the roll for the 2013 federal election.

Election day enrolment does exist in some state jurisdictions. It exists in Victoria and New South Wales, and there's no reason why it can't exist at a federal level. We need to make sure that we give people who are disenfranchised an opportunity to participate on election day. Some of them arrive at a polling booth thinking that they are enrolled and they're not, or, alternatively, their details are incorrect.

Of course there are things that need to happen beyond simply election day enrolments—for example, making sure that all young people, when they are eligible to vote, are automatically enrolled to vote. There are some provisions already within the AEC that allow for automatic enrolment, but it's not comprehensive; it needs to be much broader. There are other opportunities for the AEC to use existing databases to ensure that all Australians are on the electoral roll at the time of the election, but, in the absence of that, at a very minimum, we should allow individuals who attend a polling booth on election day to update their details, allow those votes to be counted as provisional votes, and then, once they are verified, ensure that those individuals' votes are counted. It is so critical, at a time when young people, particularly, are being disenfranchised, that we give them every opportunity to participate in the democratic process.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting these amendments. This is another matter which is not related to the authorisation of electoral communication, which is what this bill is all about. The government does not support polling day enrolment. The close of rolls period is a longstanding feature of Australian electoral law. It is required to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of elections, to ensure any delays in declaring electoral results are limited and to ensure accuracy and certainty in the electoral rolls produced for polling day.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll be opposing this amendment because, if you think that the waiting queues are long and time-consuming on election day now, bringing this up on election day would make it a nightmare.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8232 standing in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 15 (lines 29 and 30), omit the item, substitute:

11 Sections 328 and 328B

Repeal the sections, substitute:

328 Inaccurate or misleading advertising

(1) This section applies in relation to electoral matter if all of the following apply:

(a) the matter is an electoral advertisement;

(b) all or part of the distribution or production of the advertisement was paid for;

(c) the content of the advertisement was approved by a person (the notifying entity) (whether or not that person is a person who paid for the distribution or production of the advertisement).

(2) The notifying entity commits an offence if:

(a) the notifying entity publishes, or causes to be published, an electoral advertisement; and

(b) the advertisement contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate or misleading to a material extent.

Penalty: 24 penalty units.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the notifying entity could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement was inaccurate or misleading.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

(4) Section 15.2 of the Criminal Code (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) applies to an offence against subsection (2).

This amendment creates an offence for any election advertisement which includes a statement that purports to be a fact but is misleading to a material extent. It effectively prohibits any advertisement that is wrong in fact. Under this amendment, we would have the Electoral Commissioner make an application to the Federal Court to grant an injunction to withdraw the advertisement from further publication and/or to publish a retraction. It's very straightforward: if someone makes a statement that is simply wrong in fact, rather than saying, 'You've got to put your name to it,' which is what the bill currently does, we're saying you shouldn't be able to make a statement that is wrong in fact.

The offence would result in 24 penalty units. That's about $5,040 for an individual and $25,200 for a body corporate. The penalty is immaterial when it comes to large organisations that can wear the penalty, but what is much more powerful is that the Federal Court could grant an injunction and have the advertisement withdrawn. That would make a very strong statement about what is appropriate during an election campaign. Of course, there are safeguards. It would be a defence if the defendant took no part in determining the content of the advertisement and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which the charge relates was inaccurate or misleading. It's also important to note that this approach already exists in South Australia. In the existing provision in section 113 of the Electoral Act in South Australia, there is an amendment that is very similar to this amendment.

Let's be clear here. What we are currently debating is changes to AEC Act that say, 'You can lie; you can put out statements that are wrong in fact; and you can continue to mislead the Australian community. You can do all of those things. What we're going to do, though, is just make sure that you put your name to those lies.' Well, hit me with a wet piece of lettuce! Really! On the back of what have been some outrageous lies told during election campaigns, that is what we're debating here today: 'We just want to make sure that the authorisation of those lies is appropriate.' Let's not skirt around the edges. Let's recognise we've got a problem and let's fix it. Let's recognise that we do need some honesty during election campaigns and we do need people to be held to account. This amendment just ensures that publishers of political material don't mislead people on matters of fact, in contrast to what we've got at the moment, which is simply having somebody's name added to an electoral advertisement.

Some people will say that it's not the role of AEC to make those adjudications, but we think it's absolutely the role of an independent arbiter. Where there has been a lie told and a statement made that is factually incorrect, which may have a bearing on the outcome of an election, that lie should be corrected. It is absolutely critical in an environment where we are seeing political parties continue to engage in deceptive election campaigns, and where statements with no grounding in fact can influence the outcome of those election campaigns, that we have a process that ensures that we have some honesty and have people held to account. It's got nothing to do with free speech; it's got everything to do with ensuring that people don't believe they have a right to make statements that are untrue in election advertising during election campaigns.

So we recommend this amendment. We think that it goes further than where the existing legislation goes. We have for many, many years argued for some form of truth in advertising legislation. It has been legislation put to the parliament by my predecessors, Senator Bob Brown and Senator Christine Milne. We continue to advocate for truth-in-advertising provisions. This is the time for us to ensure that we get strong protections in law during election campaigns so that advertisements have to be factually correct.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment and we appreciate the opposition indicating through Senator Farrell that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment either. What Senator Di Natale describes as very straightforward is, of course, nothing of the sort. In any democratic process, what is wrong or right in fact is very often a matter of opinion, and the ultimate judges of whether one opinion should prevail as opposed to the other are, of course, the Australian people. That is what elections and democratic processes are all about. We trust the Australian people to be able to pass these judgements. In the end, if somebody puts forward a proposition which is wrong in fact, there will, no doubt, be others involved in this democratic exercise pointing that out. The Australian people will have the benefit of various sides of the argument putting their propositions, and ultimately the Australian people will make a judgement.

This is of course not a matter that is in any way related to the authorisation of electoral communications, which is what this bill is all about. The Australian parliament hasn't in the past gone down the path of seeking to regulate the content of political advertisements. We don't believe that it is desirable to do so at this point in time, and we will not be supporting this amendment.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, there are parliaments in Australia that have precisely this form of amendment. As I said, this amendment is based on the existing provision in section 113 of the Electoral Act in South Australia. Where that's been used in South Australia, the exercise of that provision has been done in a very limited way. It hasn't impacted on freedom of speech in those jurisdictions. We know that the existence of that legislation actually serves in some ways as a handbrake on false and misleading information. So we would commend this truth in advertising amendment. We would argue that it is not appropriate, and in no way is going to make any significant difference, to simply ask that somebody who advertises during an election campaign puts their name to it. We already know that that exists in practice and in law. This extends those provisions a little further but won't do what is intended to be done, and that is ensure that people are held to account.

We will argue, as we have for many, many years, that it is appropriate that statements that are simply factually inaccurate—not matters of opinion, but matters of fact—are able to be adjudicated by the Electoral Commissioner. We know that the Electoral Commissioner would exercise their judgement very judiciously in these circumstances, as they have done previously. It is important that individuals who participate in the democratic process know that there are responsibilities that come with that participation, and that is that they do not have any right, real or implied, to lie in election advertising.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be supporting this amendment by the Greens. I'm surprised that the government are not supporting it, especially after their justifiable criticisms of the opposition, the Labor Party, over 'Medismear' during last year's federal election, and especially after the Prime Minister's nocturnal comments on election night, when he got up and attacked Medismear, which, of course, saw their majority reduced to one seat. If this were the commercial world and you came out and made some non-factual claim about a miracle cure, the advertising watchdog would get you and hit on you, and you could be fined and have your product immediately withdrawn. If you are wrong in fact, as has been stressed by Senator Di Natale—not opinion or innuendo, as Senator Cormann says—then I think that you should be attacked. It should be withdrawn and you should be fined if proven guilty. It's not good enough to put your name on it and then, down the track, three months later after the election, or after the postal ballot on SSM, marriage equality, somebody says: 'Oh, that was bad. You shouldn't have done it. Naughty boy.' That's too late. If something is wrong in fact, it's wrong in fact. It should be withdrawn. It's an amendment well worth supporting.

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

If we were required to tell the absolute truth in advertising, the Greens would have nothing to campaign upon. The Greens try to tell you that the Barrier Reef is dead, and they will be running that in their next election campaign. We know that is an outright lie, but it doesn't stop the Greens from using it. We know as well that the Adani coalmine—which, fortunately, is going ahead and will create jobs in north Queensland and export wealth for all Australians—will have absolutely nothing to do with the Barrier Reef. It's 500 kilometres west of the Great Dividing Range, yet the Greens will be telling you, as they do now with their mates in GetUp!, about how this is killing the Great Barrier Reef—all lies. If this amendment were actually passed, the Greens would have absolutely nothing to campaign upon.

We know that the Greens are trying to tell us as fact that what Australia emits in carbon is destroying the world—destroying the Barrier Reef and everything else. The fact of the matter is that Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. How that can be destroying the world is anyone's guess, but it won't stop the Greens from running a false and misleading campaign about those three issues. Those are just three issues I raise. I'm quite surprised that the Greens are pushing this campaign barrow again. They would have nothing to advertise on at election time if they were required to be factual and to tell the truth.

I acknowledge what the minister has said, that it's really not an issue for the debate before the chamber, but I notice that in the previous amendment Senator Di Natale was talking about encouraging young people to have a vote. Well, Senator Di Natale, I assume you'll be supporting me later on when we work out that there were about 15 to 20 students from James Cook University who turned up at Julia Creek to vote in the very, very closely contested election in Herbert. They were told by the AEC: 'Sorry, we haven't got any envelopes, so you can't vote. It's half past four, but, if you'd like to drive on to the next town, which is two hours away'—which would make it half past six—'you might be able to get a vote there.' If you're worried about young people not voting, there was a group of JCU students on a field trip out west who called into Julia Creek in the next-door electorate, but weren't given the opportunity to have an absentee vote in the electorate of Herbert. There were about 20 of them. Of course, the election in Herbert was decided by 37 votes. I don't know those 20 would have voted, but had they voted one way the election in Herbert would have been different. At the time of the count, the government of Australia hung in the balance—was it going to be a one-seat majority, a two-seat or a no-seat majority? What was it going to be? Because the AEC were unable to properly give those people a vote we got a result in Herbert which I think is illegitimate.

Further on that, there was one ward in the Townsville Hospital, where the patients had, from eight o'clock, demanded of nursing staff that they get a vote. They were told time and time again by the hospital staff, who had checked with the AEC, that someone would be around to collect their votes. They kept asking all through the day until just before the poll closed and they were told, 'Sorry, the AEC is too busy to get your vote.' There were, I think, 42 people in that hospital ward, most of whom were registered in the electorate of Herbert and didn't get a vote. Again, I don't know how they would have voted, but they could have voted in one particular way, when the electorate was decided by just 37 votes. You can see how important it is for the AEC to do what it needs to do, and that is to make sure everyone who wants to vote is given a ballot paper.

Senator Di Natale wants the AEC to be working out whether the 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions from Australia is going to kill the Great Barrier Reef. That's what Senator Di Natale wants them to be doing. I can just imagine the AEC saying: 'Sorry, you're wrong Senator Di Natale. That's not factual.' And Senator Di Natale would be down to the High Court at the drop of a hat to try to get the them to rule on it. The proposition that Senator Di Natale puts is just ridiculous.

If Senator Di Natale is interested in democracy and the proper administration of balloting in Australia, he'll join with me at the appropriate time in making sure that everyone who wants to vote—as indicated in the electorate of Herbert, where it would have made a difference—has that opportunity. Unfortunately the AEC was not able to do that. They do a fabulous job usually, but in this instance they failed badly, and they acknowledge that. Hopefully it will never happen again, but the government of Australia could have depended upon the actions of the AEC. That's what the AEC should be doing, rather than trying to work out whether Senator Di Natale's claims that the Barrier Reef is dead are accurate or inaccurate. I know where they would come down in that, but I can just imagine the High Court challenges that would ensue were this amendment to be adopted.

I don't want to prolong this debate, and I know the minister wants to proceed as quickly as we can, but it would be interesting to see what the proposal was once the AEC decided accurately that the Barrier Reef is not dead. Would Senator Di Natale just accept that and say, 'Okay, we'll withdraw all our advertising'? What is the appeal mechanism, I wonder, that Senator Di Natale has in place for the AEC? I support the minister's approach to this amendment and oppose the amendment but urge the bill to be passed.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been a couple of issues raised today with regard to the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. In essence, I do agree with what Senator Di Natale has said; there should be truth in advertising. We've seen too many times over the years that lies have been put out in advertising by all political parties, but I've seen it mostly regarding the major political parties. The people of Australia are fed up with the lies that are being told. Voting is a very important issue for all Australians, because it will determine the future of this country and who will hold government and where the legislation will be made and how it will be passed. The people of Australia demand far better from all sides of politics, that we tell the truth when we are standing for parliament. Give the voters the opportunity to judge us on our merits, whether it be on policy or our credentials, or who we are as people representing them.

I also take the side of the argument that Senator Macdonald raised: if there are lies being put forward in a campaign with regard to Adani or the Great Barrier Reef, that needs to be up-front as well—and I totally agree. But if we go back to the last election, the Medicare scare and the text messages that were sent out—and just recently over the last weekend with regard to text messages supposedly coming from NRMAA, which was not correct—I think people expect far better. I'll also expand on this: a scare campaign and lies have already started in relation to Pauline Hanson's One Nation—the CFMEU are already putting out their scare campaign, lies and advertising, and it's not even an election.

If we expect people to be protected by legislation, any company that advertises a product must deliver what they are advertising. Why is it any different with political parties? If we expect the consumer to have a right to fair and decent products from a person or company selling that product, we should expect the same standards in the parliament and at elections.

Like I said, Pauline Hanson's One Nation will be supporting the Greens amendment to this bill. I think it needs to be reined in. I think there has to be accountability, and it's very important to the voters of this nation that we show leadership. If we expect others to abide by laws, we must also do it and at election time.

The fines that Senator Di Natale raised with regard to this, I think, are very minimal. When we are talking about millions and millions of dollars that can be gained—and it's around $50 to $60 million from political parties and electoral funding—paying out a $5,000 or a $25,000 fine is minuscule. There is a lot to be gained by political parties from their false advertising, when they can gain many, many votes and they can get people elected to parliament. Because the public have no understanding about what the real truth is, I think we should actually increase the fines and be very vigilant in making sure that whoever runs the parliament, whichever political party, is doing the right thing by the people.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to stand and reflect on the quite outrageous contribution to this debate that the chamber just heard from Senator Macdonald. Senator Macdonald has accused the Greens of many things. He has made an art form of falsely accusing the Australian Greens of many things, but the central premise of Senator Macdonald's argument was that, because Australia, in his view—and I don't accept these figures, by the way—contributes less than 1.2 per cent of the total emissions of the world, therefore we shouldn't do anything to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Well, that's akin to Senator Macdonald arguing that, because the amount of tax that any Australian pays in any given year is just a tiny fraction of the total tax take in this country, citizens should be able to withhold their taxes. That's the kind of logic that we're hearing from the coalition on this issue.

If Senator Macdonald is serious in the fundamental point that he makes, then I think what we just heard from Senator Macdonald is a speech about why he's about to cross the floor and vote for a Greens amendment that is currently before the chamber. He has said very clearly that in his view, if this amendment were passed, it would significantly curtail the way the Greens do politics in this country. Well, it wouldn't but, if he's serious about making that point, I expect to see Senator Macdonald cross the floor and vote for this amendment.

I also want to make this point with regard to the comments that Senator Macdonald made on Adani and its impact on the Great Barrier Reef: climate change is killing the Great Barrier Reef. That's what the science is telling us. That's what lived observation is telling us. That's what people who have dived on the reef, including Senator Di Natale and Senator Whish-Wilson, are telling us. It is what the scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying and understanding the Great Barrier Reef are telling us. Climate change is killing the Great Barrier Reef. And one of the primary drivers of climate change is humanity burning coal, and yet this government wants to proceed with the Adani mine, along with their mates in the Labor Party, both here in the Senate and in the Queensland government, and do everything they can—free coal, free water, free money—for Adani to get this shocking mine underway.

The Greens won't have a bar of it. We won't have a bar of it. We'll stand up and defend the Great Barrier Reef. We'll stand up and defend the people in the Caribbean and the people on the Florida peninsula right now, who are living through the impacts of climate change and who are having their lives absolutely smashed because of storms that are stronger due to the effect of climate change on our planet. We're all going to see it reflected in our insurance premiums, reflected in extra bushfires in this country, reflected in the loss of tourism dollars into Queensland and the loss of spectacular globally significant coral reef.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, a point of order?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point goes to relevance drawing it back to what the bill is rather than talking about the upside. I draw it back to what the bill is about and it's about the recent advertising.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's not a point of order, Senator Hanson.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that Senator Hanson sat quietly by and listened to the rubbish we heard from Senator Macdonald around Adani and the Great Barrier Reef without taking a point of order. She is quite happy to take a point of order on the Australian Greens when we point out the facts backed by science—something that Senator Hanson and One Nation would know absolutely nothing about whatsoever, because they are conspiracy theorists, and rampant conspiracy theorists at that.

The Greens proudly have suggested this amendment to the Senate chamber, because truth is important. Truth in advertising is important and truth in politics is important. We've seen what happened in the Brexit vote in the UK and in the presidential vote in the US, where truth became a casualty of people's greed for power. That's what we've seen, and it's time that this place, the Australian parliament, stood up and took a stand against false political advertising, took a stand against those people who prioritise their desperate scramble for political power over truth and respect for the people that we are supposed to represent in this place.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Di Natale on sheet 8232 be agreed to.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4) on sheet 8229 standing in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 7), after subclause 321D(5), insert:

Bulk voice calls

(5A) If a notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call, the notifying entity must ensure that:

(i) the particulars required to be given in respect of that communication by subsection (5), or any other particulars determined under subsection (7) for the purposes of subsection (5), are given at the beginning of the call; and

(ii) immediately after those particulars are given, a statement is given that the call is an automated political call and the call will not proceed unless the recipient of the call takes the necessary steps to allow the call to proceed.

Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 384A of this Act).

Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.

(5B) A notifying entity contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call; and

(b) the notifying entity has not ensured that a facility is available to the recipient of the call to enable the recipient to take steps to:

(i) allow the call to proceed; or

(ii) terminate the call.

Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 384A of this Act).

Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.

(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 12 (line 3), after "(5)", insert ", (5A) or (5B)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 12 (line 19), after "(5)", insert ", (5A) or (5B)".

(4) Schedule 1, item 30, page 27 (after line 7), after subclause 110C(5), insert:

Bulk voice calls

(5A) If a notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, referendum matter to a person by bulk voice call, the notifying entity must ensure that:

(i) the particulars required to be given in respect of that communication by subsection (5), or any other particulars determined under subsection 321D(7) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 for the purposes of subsection (5), are given at the beginning of the call; and

(ii) immediately after those particulars are given, a statement is given that the call is an automated political call and the call will not proceed unless the recipient of the call takes the necessary steps to allow the call to proceed.

Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 140AAA of this Act).

Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.

(5B) A notifying entity contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, referendum matter to a person by bulk voice call; and

(b) the notifying entity has not ensured that a facility is available to the recipient of the call to enable the recipient to take steps to:

(i) allow the call to proceed; or

(ii) terminate the call.

Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 140AAA of this Act).

Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.

These are what would colloquially be known as the 'robocall amendments'. These amendments relate to bulk voice calls. What these amendments essentially do is the following. If a notifying entity communicates or approves the communication of an electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call—that is, a robocall—the notifying entity must ensure, essentially, that upfront you are told who is the body responsible for it, whether it is the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or a union. It is all about ensuring that upfront you know who is authorising the call. Secondly, the important safeguard is that you are then given an option to specifically opt in if you want to take that call. This amendment is technology-neutral in relation to that, but you can decide—it could be a voice command for yes or no, or 'Press 1 to hear the rest of the call.'

What we are seeing with robo-calls is that you get a spiel that goes on for quite a while. At the end of it, you find out who is authorising it. I think that the party responsible—that is, the entity responsible—should be upfront as to who is behind the robo-call. The voter should get a chance to decide whether they want to hear that call. The method of authorisation, the method of giving voters the power to say yes or no to that call, ought to be reformed. That is what this particular amendment seeks to do. Otherwise, I think this will be an increasing issue. Of course, this does not constrain political communication. What it does is give the power back to the voter—firstly, to know who is authorising these calls upfront and, secondly, to make a decision as to whether they want to hear the message.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's bill already extends the authorisation of electoral matters to include bulk voice calls for the first time. In fact, that is one of the key features of the legislation in front of us. The bill allows the Electoral Commissioner, by legislative instrument, to determine further requirements in relation to the particulars announced as part of the authorisation. This allows the Electoral Commissioner to update requirements in response to changing circumstances and new technology and ensures the requirements are appropriate for the medium used to communicate the message. While it would ultimately be a matter for the commissioner, the logical place for the authorisation of such communication is, in our view, at the start of a call, but that is not something that the parliament needs to get itself involved in. We should leave that to the independent judgement of the Electoral Commissioner, as is the case in relation to authorisation arrangements and particulars of authorisation requirements more generally.

In just picking up on the point that Senator Xenophon has made about empowering the voter, the voter is, of course, empowered. The recipient of any phone call is able to hang up at any time. We don't believe it is necessary to amend the bill to require the recipient of a bulk voice call to take necessary steps in order for the call to proceed. We would encourage anyone who receives a phone call in relation to a political communication that they don't approve of to just hang up. For these reasons, the government does not support this amendment at this time.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be supporting the amendments. We've only just received them in the last few minutes. If Senator Xenophon was serious about these amendments then he would have at least started some meaningful discussions about them. We don't believe the provisions suggested by Senator Xenophon would assist in fostering genuine political communications. As Senator Cormann noted, if you don't like the contents of the robocall, you can simply hang up.

The Australian Electoral Commission is provided with significant powers in this bill, as a result of the work of the JSCEM committee. I'm not sure whether any member of the Xenophon team seriously participated in that process, but those people who did so have come forward with a significant and meaningful piece of legislation. As I said, the Australian Electoral Commission is provided with significant powers in this bill to determine the intricacies of political authorisation, and we trust that it will do so appropriately.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that there will be regulations around this bill, I ask: does the government, as a matter of principle, at least consider at this stage the merit of an authorisation being required upfront—in other words, so that the voter knows upfront who is making the call—rather than a minute or two later? It's pretty obvious, if the robocall starts off with, 'This is Malcolm Turnbull', or, 'This is Bill Shorten', who is authorising it—

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minerals Council!

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ignore that very cynical interjection from Senator Di Natale!

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Even in those cases, maybe there are some people in this country who don't know who Malcolm Turnbull or Bill Shorten are—not many, but there might be a couple. So, can the government indicate (a) whether they consider there is merit in what is being proposed, at least in relation to the issue of the upfront authorisation, and (b) whether the regulations would have the scope to allow for upfront authorisations to be embedded in the regulations?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually directly addressed that point in my initial comments to your amendments, Senator Xenophon. Just to make it clear again: this bill gives the Electoral Commissioner the power to make a legislative instrument prescribing certain matters. It doesn't mean that the Electoral Commissioner has to exercise these powers, but he can. The legislative instrument can prescribe, amongst other things, a requirement in relation to when and how the authorisations in the context of voice calls are most appropriately made.

As I said in my remarks, while it would ultimately be a matter for the Electoral Commissioner, the government certainly agrees that the logical place for the authorisation of such communication to take place is at the start of the call. But we believe that the legislation in front of the parliament, which responds to relevant recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and extends, for the first time, the authorisation of electoral matter to include bulk voice calls, gives the Electoral Commissioner all of the necessary powers which he or she exercises independently to make relevant arrangements in relation to the authorisation of robocalls.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all know that everything takes time, whether it's up here or elsewhere; the robocalls are already over and done with; and then the Electoral Commissioner takes a week or two to get on to it and to all the complaints he has finally got. Does the commissioner have a time line for answering or for doing something about this? Or have we not struck those laws yet?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Electoral Commissioner is an independent statutory officer and that is as it should be, because while all of us are actors in the political process, it's very important for the Electoral Commissioner to exercise his responsibilities independently. If this bill is passed by the parliament, and based on the indications so far it will be, then the Electoral Commissioner will have the opportunity to make certain arrangements around authorisation requirements. But it will be a matter for him—if, how and when he chooses to exercise those powers.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just wanted to clarify that, Minister. So there is no time line, so he can either do it today, or he can do it in two weeks time. I'm just not sure how this is supposed to help the situation: if you don't have a time frame around when he's supposed to act on what he has been told about these robocalls, then what's the point of it?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point is, what the government is doing here in good faith is responding to the recommendations from the non-partisan, cross-party Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters by modernising authorisation requirements to ensure that new methods of communications are appropriately catered for. But in the end, yes—as it was before—the Electoral Commissioner continues to be independent. He is not forced to make certain determinations. He will have the option to make certain determinations but, ultimately, it is a matter for his independent judgement. From the government's point of view—and I'm sure that the opposition would have the same view—we think it is very important for the Electoral Commissioner to continue to exercise his statutory responsibilities independently and not be subject to political direction from anyone.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.