Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In the three minutes in which I spoke last night I referred in very brief detail to the amendment proposed by the opposition which related to the issues covered in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 and which they thought should be withdrawn. The first issue is:

(1)

reduce the period of time Australians have to enrol to vote and update their details on the electoral roll;

When we look at the legislation which is subject to amendment and conditions that, to the best of my knowledge, have applied over the 25 years I have been in this place, we come to section 101 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, ‘Compulsory enrolment and transfer’. It has always been the case that we have had compulsory voting and compulsory enrolment. We have a compulsion that says that people will give advice to the Electoral Commission about any change to their residential address, particularly as it relates to change of electorate. Part VIII, subsection 101(6) makes this very clear. It says:

A person who fails to comply with subsection (1), (4) or (5) is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 1 penalty unit.

We have the constantly recurring argument about closing people’s right to enrol or giving details of changed residential address that, somehow or other, they all choose to do so, but they have an obligation under a longstanding section of the existing Electoral Act. Subsection 101(4) says:

Subject to subsection (5A), every person who is entitled to have his or her name placed on the Roll for any Subdivision whether by way of enrolment or transfer of enrolment, and whose name is not on the Roll upon the expiration of 21 days from the date upon which the person became so entitled, or at any subsequent date while the person continues to be so entitled, shall be guilty of an offence unless he or she proves that the non-enrolment is not in consequence of his or her failure to send or deliver to a Divisional Returning Officer or an Australian Electoral Officer, a claim, duly filled in and signed in accordance with the directions printed thereon.

Note:      A defendant bears a legal burden in relation to the defence in subsection (4) (see section 13.4 of the Criminal Code).

The argument that everybody is entitled to rush up and top-load the Electoral Commission after the calling of the writs is an argument that people should be encouraged to break the law. The only people who have a reasonable argument for enrolling after the writs have been issued—in amendments the government is also proposing to clarify this issue—are those who were unable to enrol on a previous occasion, and they are in a considerable minority. In fact, under existing legislation, if your circumstances are such that you turn 18 after the calling of the writs, you had the opportunity when you were 17 years old to lodge an advance application. What a hoo-ha that 80,000 young people will be denied because they have been delinquent in meeting their obligations under the act as it is written. That is silly and wrong, and it virtually encourages people to break the law as it exists.

Then we get to introduce new proof of identity requirements. As I pointed out briefly last night, the new legislation does virtually no more than introduce requirements—requirements which young people have become quite understanding of and quite used to meeting—to produce some form of evidence, particularly of their age, as they do to get into the local nightclub, or, if questioned, produce such documentation that proves their age, in particular. So we have it at the local pub, but it is considered unreasonable when someone seeks to be enrolled or to otherwise have to prove their identity in another category, which I will refer to in a moment.

I am reminded of questions without notice directed to the then Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison, on 27 November 2001. It is pretty interesting stuff because it refers to the Queensland scandal. The ALP was enrolling people falsely to improve its opportunities to branch-stack in Queensland. If anybody needs protection from claims of false identity, it appears that the Labor Party should be the first cab off the rank. The Labor Party had this massive scandal in Queensland. That scandal resulted in the resignation of Jim Elder, who was Deputy Premier of Queensland, because he became mixed up in this identity scam. The Shepherdson inquiry had to extend its terms of reference to enable it to conduct an investigation into alleged official misconduct ‘which constituted a criminal offence or offences by Peter James Elder in respect of matters affecting the electoral roll,’ the CJC said.

Then we find there are other identities: a Mr Mike Kaiser, former ALP secretary, and Mr Gary Fenlon. It was stated the ‘Mr Powell has accused Mr Fenlon of providing addresses of safe houses where voters could be illegally enrolled.’ This was because the ALP—I think quite properly—wanted to know that people who were enrolled in branches actually lived within the area of the branch of which they were entitled to be a member. I would think a few people who have been under a bit of pressure in other parts of Australia recently where allegations of branch stacking have arisen would be comforted to know that this new legislation will prevent that form of branch stacking in the ALP.

However, it goes a bit further when it comes to identification and to another problem associated, presumably, with provisional voting—vote early and vote often. Another answer was given by the then Special Minister of State on 6 November 2000 in the Courier-Mail, wherein the Special Minister of State pointed out that a Labor official, ‘a member of the 1987 federal election campaign team, has revealed that he and other ALP supporters cast numerous votes for Mr Lavarch and other ALP candidates in state and federal elections by illegally impersonating people’. This is evidence. In the Courier-Mail’s expose, he gives an example of how Labor went about rorting the electoral process. The article states:

On polling day in Fisher, he recalls, there were many female names on the rort list, but a lack of women in on the scam. “But we got one young girl of 16 from Young Labor who thought it was quite exciting. She voted 14 times.”

These answers were given in the parliament without being rejected, without it being said that they were not true. The scam works like this: a trusted inner circle of campaign workers compiles lists of voters who have left an electorate but are still listed as enrolled there. Labor supporters then cast votes in those names on polling day. In some cases, they cast ballots more than a dozen times.

One has to look at Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who have a concern about casting a vote and who simply do not. The opportunity exists for someone to go along and join and to express support for their particular religious beliefs. They can get to know the lot and then turn up on polling day and vote for them. There are some very interesting statistics, which I remember but cannot quote in detail, about the year when the member for Brand was under severe pressure—I think it was in 1996. In fact, it was recorded and admitted by the Electoral Commissioner that a massive increase in provisional votes were cast under that system, which was virtually one where a person could turn up and say, ‘I live in Smith Street and I’m not on the roll.’ They would be given a provisional vote and be counted without further checking, as long as they had signed a stat dec.

In that 1996 election, when the polling was telling Labor that one of their senior people was at risk of being defeated in the electorate of Brand, there was almost a trebling of provisional votes. Although there had been a trend right across the polling booths in favour of the Liberal candidate, who was leading on the count, 80 per cent of the provisional votes, when counted, went to Mr Beazley, the member for Brand. That had not been the trend. You would think at least that, if these people lived in various areas and sought a provisional vote, their voting intentions would be consistent with those of other people. It is a statistical fact that one would anticipate. It is an interesting point that provisional votes tend not to run in that direction. But to see the Liberal candidate leading by 51 per cent on the primaries and suddenly, on the emptying out of the provisional box, it goes 80-20 against her, you have to start to ask a few questions.

This legislation sets out to make that significantly more difficult and, in fact, to ensure that the votes are not counted unless the person claiming that provisional vote produces evidence, firstly, of where they live and, secondly, that they are who they say they are. It also requires that those votes will be set aside if those circumstances are not met on the spot, and they will not be counted until there is adequate evidence to support that person’s claim for a vote.

Why do these things have to be attacked? Why would the opposition wish to have these matters withdrawn? In the time remaining to me, let me also repeat what I said about the increase in the disclosure threshold to $10,000. There are two major political parties. One group is supported openly by the trade union movement with tens of millions of dollars. That is seen as being transparent. Of course, the results of recent pre-selections show that the influence of that money is such that 50 per cent of the pre-selection votes cast for individuals are virtually held by the trade union movement.

That influence is demonstrated here every day. It may be that the people who comply with those instructions believe they are doing the right thing. They have come from those institutions and they come to this place to promote those particular commercial interests—and they are commercial interests. All those people out there in the movement are making a living out of their line of philosophy, if you like. They are very upset at the moment that their services may be seen as being less necessary to many workers. Maybe they will be more necessary; if all the predictions they are making about where workers will end up come true, there will be a pretty interesting situation in that everyone will want to join.

The reality is that we on this side rely significantly on personal donations in order to put our case to the people as to how we would better run the country. The problem has been that small business people say, ‘Hey, if I have a declaration that I’ve donated to you, an instruction goes out’—and I have seen this happen in a town called Collie that I once represented—‘and people are told not to shop at our shop by trade union people.’ Alternatively, a strike might be called in their business. You cannot do it. People are entitled to make a donation, and you do not buy support from the Liberals for $10,000 or $1,000. (Time expired)

See this speech in context