Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're dealing with Senator Hanson's amendment.

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

With the luxury of a brief additional period of time, I'll put the Greens' position on the record in relation to this amendment. We support participatory democracy. Politics can't work for people without listening to their voices rather than the voices of big donors and corporations. However, the proposal from One Nation sets the threshold for triggering a big and expensive review of our constitutional framework at just two per cent of voters in the majority of states. That is a big change, and we think it needs more consideration, particularly about what an appropriate threshold will be. We will not be supporting the amendments, but we will continue to call for reforms that increase democratic participation and give politics back to the people. This could include a range of things such as citizen juries, reforming question time, mechanisms to allow the public to petition for a key issue to be debated in parliament, a range of reforms to get big money out of politics and ensuring that the maximum number of people get to vote in elections and referenda, something that our amendments, which, sadly, were not supported by this chamber, sought to achieve.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to indicate that the opposition think that this is a very interesting idea, but it should go through the normal JSCEM processes, so we won't be supporting this amendment at this time.

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

LAMBIE () (): The JLN will not be supporting this, although we do agree that it's an interesting idea. It's just a little bit late in the involvement of things.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hanson for her contribution. I agree that this is a very interesting proposal. I have not had time to look at it properly. Whilst generally supportive of participatory democracy, should this come to a vote, I will abstain.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I put the motion: because of the nature of the number of motions in relation to the placement of business, we can't, at this point in time, have divisions. I'm in the hands of the leaders here. We can actually record our positions, or we can move further motions to amend that position. We can put the question for that division, but the division will be deferred. I'm in the hands of the chamber. Before I put the question, I'm happy to reflect the will of the chamber.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems there are two options before us to try to conclude tonight. One is that, as you just expressed, the parties can individually express their positions, and that avoids the need for a division to be called. The other is that, if we report out of the committee again, with the leave of the chamber and no disagreement across the chamber, we could move that divisions also be allowed if that is the will of members. But, if somebody called a division on that, that division itself would have to be deferred until tomorrow. Depending on the will of the people to easily get the job done, the simplest path would be for people to express their opinions and for those to be recorded.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is anybody intending to call a division for any of the remaining—

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

We would have if we could have.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If nobody is intending to call a division, let's proceed.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the suggestion from Senator Birmingham is a good one and I feel that the goodwill in the room was to that intent. We should move forward in that vein.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So are you suggesting that we report progress, move another motion to allow divisions and then return back into committee?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has no objection, so I'll give the call to Senator Hanson.

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

To confirm that: do you want to record the votes without calling a division? Obviously, if I wanted to call a division, I have the opportunity to call a division for this if I have the two voices. Is that correct?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could still call a division, but it would have to take place tomorrow. One of the options on the table is that we report progress—I go up to the chair—and then we allow divisions and just proceed.

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

I'm quite happy to have people's votes recorded without calling a division.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but other members of the chamber wish to have divisions.

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

So we're going to have a division?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens have indicated that they wish to.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens would like to be able to complete this tonight, if we can. I feel like there's goodwill in the room to do it. If we don't need divisions and all parties are willing to put their position on the record, that is fine. We are also relaxed about the idea of having to go back to the Senate if need be. I feel as though we now have consensus around the room—something the Greens are quite good at—to make sure that we can move forward.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to summarise the mood of the room and then you can all pull it apart. I feel that the mood of the room is to stay in committee and proceed. If someone wishes to record their position, they can do so. I'm going to proceed. I now put the question that the amendment on sheet 1874 moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.

Question negatived.

I think, Senator Hanson, you would like it recorded that you supported that amendment—and Senator Babet and Senator Roberts.

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

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1862:

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 11 — Entitlement to vote

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

1 Subsection 93(2)

Omit ", (5) and (8AA)", substitute "and (5)".

2 Subsection 93(8AA)

Repeal the subsection.

3 Section 109

Repeal the section.

4 Subsection 110(1)

Omit "sections 108 and 109", substitute "section 108".

5 Subsection 112(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

Application of section 108 to the Australian Capital Territory

(2) For the purposes of the application of section 108 in relation to the Australian Capital Territory:

(a) the Australian Capital Territory does not include Norfolk Island or the Jervis Bay Territory; and

(b) subject to subsection (3), section 108 applies in relation to Norfolk Island as if references in that section to a State were references to Norfolk Island; and

(c) subject to subsection (4), section 108 applies in relation to the Jervis Bay Territory as if references in that section to a State were references to the Jervis Bay Territory.

6 Subsection 112(5)

Repeal the subsection.

7 Subsection 112(6)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

Application of section 108 to the Northern Territory

(6) For the purposes of the application of section 108 in relation to the Northern Territory:

(a) the Northern Territory does not include the Territory of Christmas Island or the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands; and

(b) subject to subsection (7), section 109 applies in relation to the Territory of Christmas Island as if references in that section to a State were references to the Territory of Christmas Island; and

(c) subject to subsection (8), section 109 applies in relation to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands as if references in that sections to a State were references to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

8 Subsection 112(9)

Repeal the subsection.

9 Paragraph 208(2)(b)

Omit "; and".

10 Paragraph 208(2)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

11 Paragraph 221(3)(a)

Omit "or".

12 Paragraph 221(3)(b)

Repeal the paragraph.

This amendment would remove the restriction on people in prison being able to vote. Denying people in prison the right to vote is like adding punishment beyond their imprisonment. It treats people in prison as if they are not members of the Australian community and as if their views on constitutional reforms that impact the way we live our lives don't matter. Restricting the right of people in prison to vote is a form of disenfranchisement, which heavily affects already marginalised people.

The overincarceration of First Nations people means that disenfranchisement disproportionately affects Aboriginal communities, which are already neglected by political processes. Some 0.6 per cent of Aboriginal people in Australia are disenfranchised by restrictions on voting from prison, compared to 0.075 per cent of non-Aboriginal people. We know that many people removed from the electoral roll while in prison may not re-enrol after their release, which just compounds the disenfranchising impact of the restriction.

This amendment seeks to restore the dignity and voting rights of people in prison. I urge the chamber to support it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rather than get up every time, I indicate that we oppose all of the remaining Australian Greens amendments. There's an opportunity to raise these issues in JSCEM.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the convenience of the chamber, I indicate that the opposition will also not be supporting any of the upcoming amendments of the Greens and the one that is immediately before the chamber.

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

One Nation will not be supporting this amendment. Senator Waters said that people in incarceration should have the right to vote. I'm sorry, but they shouldn't have the right to vote. They have committed crimes against society and lost their rights, and one of the rights is the right to vote. If you don't commit crimes—and be a citizen—then you will have those rights.

Question negatived.

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

I ask that it be recorded that the Greens voted in support of our own excellent amendment.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To make this work, do any other senators wish to indicate that their support be recorded? Okay. I intend to ask that question after every vote to remind members.

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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1843 together:

(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (after line 7), after the definition of disclosure threshold, insert:

financial disclosure period has the meaning given by section 3AAB.

(2) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (after line 21), after the definition of referendum expenditure period, insert:

reporting timeframe has the meaning given by section 3AAB.

(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 19 (after line 30), after section 3AAA, insert:

3AAB Financial disclosure periods and reporting timeframes

Column 1 of the following table sets out the financial disclosure periods in a referendum expenditure period. Column 2 of the table sets out the reporting timeframe for each financial disclosure period.

(4) Schedule 4, item 3, page 21 (line 3) to page 24 (line 2), omit sections 109E and 109F, substitute:

109E Returns by referendum entities

(1) A person or entity (the relevant person) must provide a return in accordance with this section if the relevant person has become a referendum entity by the end of a financial disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period.

Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918).

Civil penalty:

The higher of the following amounts:

(a) 60 penalty units;

(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of referendum expenditure not disclosed—3 times that amount.

(2) The relevant person must provide to the Electoral Commission a return:

(a) setting out:

(i) details of the referendum expenditure incurred by or with the authority of the relevant person during the period covered by subsection (3); and

(ii) the total value of gifts covered by subsection (4) that were received by the relevant person during the period covered by subsection (3); and

(iii) the total number of persons and entities who made gifts covered by subsection (4) to the relevant person during the period covered by subsection (3); and

(b) if the financial disclosure period is the final such period in a referendum expenditure period—including a statement that the relevant person complied with section 109J during the referendum expenditure period, signed by the members, agents or officers (however described) of the relevant person who have responsibility for ensuring that the relevant person complies with this Part.

Note: For the purposes of subparagraph (a)(i), referendum expenditure is the total amount of expenditure incurred the period covered by subsection (3) in relation to all referendums held on a single day (see subsection 3AAA(3)).

(3) The period covered by this subsection is:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the financial disclosure period; or

(b) if the financial disclosure period is not the first such period in the referendum expenditure period, and the relevant person became a referendum entity during the financial disclosure period—the period starting at the start of the referendum expenditure period and ending at the end of the financial disclosure period.

(4) A gift is covered by this subsection if:

(a) the relevant person knows that the person or entity who made the gift intends the gift to be used for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter; or

(b) the relevant person accepted the gift intending to use the gift for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.

(5) The return must:

(a) be provided before the end of the reporting timeframe for the financial disclosure period; and

(b) be in the approved form; and

(c) if the relevant person is also required to provide a return under section 109F for the financial disclosure period—include that return.

(6) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (1) of this section.

109F Returns relating to gifts received by referendum entities for referendum exp enditure

(1) A person or entity (the relevant person) must provide a return for a financial disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period in accordance with this section if:

(a) the relevant person has become a referendum entity by the end of the financial disclosure period; and

(b) the relevant person received one or more gifts covered by subsection (2) during:

(i) unless subparagraph (ii) applies—the financial disclosure period; or

(ii) if the financial disclosure period is not the first such period in the referendum expenditure period, and the relevant person became a referendum entity during the financial disclosure period—the period starting at the start of the referendum expenditure period and ending at the end of the financial disclosure period.

Note: The return required under this section must be included in the return provided under section 109E (see paragraph 109E(5)(c)).

(2) A gift received by the relevant person from another person or entity is covered by this subsection if the gift is covered by subsection (3) and the total amount of the following was more than $1,000:

(a) the gift;

(b) any other gifts covered by subsection (3) that the relevant person has received from the other person or entity during the period starting at the start of the referendum expenditure period and ending at the end of the financial disclosure period.

(3) A gift is covered by this subsection if:

(a) the relevant person knows that the person or entity who made the gift intends the gift to be used for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter; or

(b) the relevant person accepted the gift intending to use the gift for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.

(4) The relevant person must provide to the Electoral Commission a return setting out the information referred to in subsection (5) in relation to:

(a) each gift mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) received by the relevant person from any other person or entity; and

(b) any other gift received by the relevant person from another person or entity mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection, if:

(i) the gift is mentioned in paragraph (2)(b); and

(ii) the relevant person was not already required to give information in relation to the gift in a return under this section.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the information is:

(a) the amount of the gift or each of the gifts; and

(b) the date on which the gift or each of the gifts were made; and

(c) the following:

(i) for a gift or gifts on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association (other than a registered industrial organisation within the meaning of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)—the name of the association, and the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association;

(ii) for a gift or gifts purportedly made out of a trust fund, or out of the funds of a foundation—the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or foundation, and the title, name or other description of the trust fund or foundation;

(iii) for any other gift or gifts—the name and address of the person who made the gift or gifts.

(5) Schedule 4, item 3, page 24 (lines 14 and 15), omit "the disclosure threshold", substitute "$1,000".

(6) Schedule 4, item 3, page 24 (line 16), omit "15 weeks", substitute "5 days".

(7) Schedule 4, item 7, page 40 (table item 6), omit "24 weeks after the voting day for the referendum to which the return relates", substitute "14 days after the return is provided".

Our amendments do two things. They lower the disclosure threshold to $1,000, the level the Greens have long advocated for all donation disclosures to be set at and the level that it is in fact set at in most states and territories. The amendments also require far more regular disclosure so that people aren't finding out who funded the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns many months after the referendum is done and dusted.

Disclosure isn't a complete solution. The Greens will continue to call for caps on donations in all elections. But regular disclosure of all donations above $1,000 would give people a better insight into who is providing the information that they rely upon when they decide how they will vote.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put on the record that we support this.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I ask that my name be recorded as being opposed to the amendments.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.