Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be to talk on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005. But before I start my remarks I want to reject a couple of the suggestions that have been made in the speech the member for Banks has just given to the House.

Firstly, there was an inference throughout his speech that somehow the government has looked at the electoral system and designed this bill to give us some sort of political advantage. That is just not true at all. This bill is designed to ensure the integrity of the electoral system. The member for Banks was somehow suggesting that voters who have not enrolled properly may be more inclined not to vote for the government. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. I totally reject the suggestion that this bill has been designed to give the Liberal Party any political advantage, because there is no evidence that that is the case.

Secondly, the member for Banks asserted throughout his speech that there is no evidence of electoral fraud in Australia. Sadly, that is just not true. There is ample evidence of electoral fraud and that the electoral roll is not currently accurate. If he wants an example of this he might want to pop down the road to Curtin House and talk to the Assistant National Secretary of the Labor Party—he knows a thing or two about rorting the electoral roll. He would be able to explain not only that the electoral roll has been rorted but also exactly how you could go about doing that. So there is ample evidence of electoral fraud, sadly, and some has been aired in the Shepherdson inquiry in Queensland in particular.

I would not say that electoral reform is what the Prime Minister might term a barbecue stopper. It is certainly not something that has been raised with me by many of my constituents. But I think that everyone in Australia expects an electoral system that is 100 per cent above reproach. That is a vital element in our democracy.

From the electoral history of my own seat of Stirling, I can give the House a pretty good example of why that is the case. In the election of 1974, the incumbent at the time, Ian Viner, won the seat by a grand total of 12 votes. This story has been relayed to me—as the candidate and later the member for Stirling—on many occasions. I have to confess that I thought it might have been something of an urban myth. But I checked with the Parliamentary Library, and it is true that if seven people in the seat of Stirling had changed their minds in 1974, the seat would have been decided another way.

Ian Viner, who won the seat by those 12 votes, went on to have a distinguished career within the Fraser government. Even though it was a long time ago, I can certainly sympathise with the Labor challenger at the time. But we can see from this example how important it is to have a 100 per cent accurate electoral roll. As I said, there is ample evidence that in Australia the electoral roll is not 100 per cent accurate.

I mentioned the Shepherdson inquiry in my introductory remarks. Obviously that inquiry bypassed the member for Banks. He could not have been reading the papers or listening to television or radio during those few months. The inquiry shows that in Australia the electoral roll has been rorted for the basest political purposes. This bill contains a number of measures that will stop that from happening. It is very difficult for me to understand why the ALP would oppose any of these sensible measures, particularly when their own internal processes were being rorted in the examples that I just raised.

Following every election in Australia, a joint committee of the parliament is established to look into the conduct of that election and report back to the parliament about it. No-one suggests that the Australian electoral system is not very good, but this committee is designed to look at the system and report back to the parliament about improvements that can be made. This process of examination is a very important one.

Following the 2000 election, the committee, under the able chairmanship of the member for Casey, took submissions in the capital cities and in rural and regional Australia. Over 200 people presented submissions to that committee. The committee tabled its report on 10 October following the public hearings. As I suggested, the conclusion was that Australia has an excellent electoral system but that there are some areas where it can be improved.

The government looked at the committee’s report, and this bill contains the government’s response to it. It contains many of the reforms that were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The bill makes amendments to a number of acts, including the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act. The amendments cover several important areas, some of which I will take a close look at today, including disclosure of political donations, increasing ID requirements for enrolment and provisional voting, the timing of the close of the roll, prisoner loss of vote, access to the electoral roll and political party registration.

Among the most notable amendments in the bill is increasing the declarable limit for the disclosure of political donations. The provisions will increase the disclosure threshold from $1,500 to $10,000 and increase the threshold in line with the CPI. It has been more than 20 years since the threshold for disclosure of political donations was first introduced at the level of $1,000. Even at that time, it was an absurdly low figure. The arguments for lifting the threshold are now even more absolute.

The purpose of disclosure is obviously very clear. The public needs to know that people who are making donations to political parties cannot seek to gain undue influence by doing so. The disclosure laws provide the necessary transparency to give the public confidence that they know where political parties are being funded from.

But as you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, elections in Australia are now multimillion dollar affairs and electoral expenditure of both major parties exceeds tens of millions of dollars. We in this parliament therefore need to exercise some judgment about what is an appropriate level at which to disclose donations without subjecting people in the organisations involved to unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. The threshold was much too low when it was first set, and it has subsequently been severely eroded by inflation. It adds nothing to our democracy except unnecessary red tape.

The reality is that the threshold is set way too low. Reducing the threshold even further, as has been suggested by some members in this place today, will not increase disclosure or increase transparency within our democracy. In 2003-04, prior to the last federal election, 88 per cent of all donations disclosed by the two major parties were in excess of $10,000.

Raising the disclosure threshold will also reduce the administrative burden on the AEC. An increase to $10,000 will see the donation threshold moved to be in line with that of similar sorts of democracies, such as the United Kingdom.

It is absurd to think that decreasing the threshold, as has been suggested here, would do anything to enhance our democracy. It may well result in little old ladies having to declare to the AEC the purchase of a $1 raffle ticket. I do not think that anyone is seriously suggesting that declaring to the AEC every whip-round or every raffle is in any way going to do anything apart from create an administrative nightmare. Our system is not made any more transparent by a low disclosure threshold; all it is doing is creating unnecessary administration. It is vitally important that the threshold is now raised to a sensible level.

I move on to donations to political parties and independent candidates. The provisions in this bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to increase the level of tax-deductible contributions to political parties and independent candidates, whether by individuals or corporations, from $100 to $1,500 in any income year.

Under the current law, a taxpayer cannot claim a tax deduction for more than $100 of contributions to political parties registered under part 11 of the Electoral Act. The proposed amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act will increase the tax deductibility value of contributions from an individual or from a corporation to a registered political party or an independent candidate in relation to Commonwealth or state elections from $100 to $1,500 and these amendments will commence at royal assent.

Political parties in Australia are actually very important community organisations. The two major parties—the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party—have historically been responsible for providing good government, not just at the federal level but at the state and territory level. This is a very important responsibility. Australians should be encouraged to contribute to political parties and to the political process, rather than be discouraged through the tax system. I maintain that politics is a very important community calling and that when people take the time and use their own financial resources to support that process, they should be rightly supported by the tax system, as they would be if they were donating to other community organisations.

A lot of the debate in this place about this bill has been about increasing the requirements for electoral enrolment and increasing the identification requirements for provisional voting. It is disturbing to think that it is harder to rent a DVD than it is to get on the electoral roll in Australia. Under the current system, there is also no requirement for a voter to actually prove who they are before they cast their vote. The intention of this bill is to introduce stricter requirements; namely, that people need some proof of identity when enrolling or updating their enrolment by showing their drivers licence or another form of identification or by having their enrolment application signed by two referees who are not family and who have known the applicant for at least one month and who must also provide a drivers licence number.

We cannot underestimate the importance of having an accurate electoral roll. It is a vital pillar of our democratic processes. At the moment, there is cause to believe that the electoral roll is only reasonably accurate, and I do not think that is good enough. This issue is of great importance to me as a marginal seat holder and because of the history that I outlined earlier about the seat having been won at one stage by 12 votes.

The AEC reported in February 2004 that in the electorate of Isaacs the electoral roll was only 90 per cent accurate. I do not think that is an acceptable level of accuracy and there is no reason to suggest that that is not replicated in other seats. Questions of accuracy and fraud, therefore, can arise in relation to election results. In the last election, in 2004, 27,000 people who cast provisional votes had them accepted in the count, although they were later unable to be put on the electoral roll because they failed to qualify. This meant that 27,000 votes were potentially incorrectly included in the count. It is not rocket science to work out that a 10 per cent error rate in our electoral roll could have a significant impact on the outcome of any individual election. Let us not leave out the potential for incorrect enrolments to help people create false identities and help people conduct social security fraud. Electoral enrolment can be used as 25 points out of a 100-point ID check.

Therefore, I think it is vitally important that we establish some moderate proof of identity requirements for provisional voting. An elector, other than a silent elector who wants to cast a provisional vote on polling day, will need to show either a drivers licence or a prescribed identity document of the same type required for enrolment proof of identity. This will be shown to an officer from the AEC at the time of casting the provisional vote or by close of business on the Friday following polling day. If the elector cannot show the document in person, they may post, fax or email an attested copy to the AEC. Ballot papers will only be admitted to the count if the provisional voter has provided suitable identification if they were not enrolled, or if their omission from the roll was the result of an error within the Electoral Commission. It is high time that basic identity requirements were required to protect the integrity of the roll.

I move on now to the closing of the roll. This refers to the time by which electors must enrol or change enrolment details prior to an election. At present this stands at seven days after the election writs are issued. This bill aims to reduce the close of roll period to provide that, in general, the roll will close at 8 pm on the third working day after the issue of the writ. However, persons who are not on the roll—with two exceptions, which I will set out—will not be added to the roll in the period between 8 pm on the day of the issue of the writ and polling day. The exceptions for persons who are not on the roll are either 17-year-olds who will turn 18 between the day the writ is issued and polling day, or people who will be granted citizenship between the issue of the writ and polling day. Persons in these categories can apply for enrolment up until the close of the roll at 8 pm three working days after the day on which the writ is issued.

The reasons for this are obvious. In the seven-day rush to enrol, massive amounts of pressure are put on the Electoral Commission, and this can put into question its ability to accurately check and assess enrolment claims. As I understand it, prior to the last election, 423,993 changes to enrolment were processed in the close of roll period. Of these, 78,816 were new enrolments and 225,314 were changes of address. This is a phenomenal amount of work thrust on the AEC in an incredibly short period of time. This seven-day period does nothing for our system other than increase the likelihood of error—and, sadly, of fraud. Contrary to some claims aired in the parliament, this move is not intended to disenfranchise anyone, particularly young people, as mentioned by the member for Banks. We must allow the AEC enough time to accurately process enrolments.

This bill will enhance the provisions for the disenfranchisement of prisoners. Currently, prisoners who are serving a full-time sentence of three years or longer are denied the right to vote. This bill will amend the voting entitlement provisions so that all prisoners serving a sentence of full-time detention will not be entitled to vote; however, they may remain on the roll or, if not enrolled, apply for enrolment. Those serving alternative sentences, such as periodic or home detention, as well as those serving non-custodial sentences or those who have been released on parole will still be eligible to enrol and vote.

If a court of law has judged that you have wronged society in such a way that you are to be denied your freedom then I certainly think it follows that you should be denied your right to participate in the democratic process. I do not doubt that the majority of Australians would agree that it is high time that people who have lost their freedom also lose the right to participate in our democracy. When you have committed an offence that is serious enough to be punishable by imprisonment then surely your views on the governance of the country should no longer be required for the period that you are incarcerated. We already have this provision in my home state of Western Australia, and it is high time that it was extended to the national scene as well.

I will move on to access to the electoral roll and provisions that provide for access to the roll by persons and organisations that verify, or contribute to the verification of, the identity of persons for the purposes of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 and provide that such use is not subject to the commercial use prohibition. This bill will also require that, in the future, divisional offices of the AEC must be located within divisional boundaries unless otherwise authorised by the minister.

I am also keen on the provisions in this bill that will increase nomination deposits, that will draw associated entities and third parties into the same accountability requirements as those that apply to political parties and, finally, that will remove the requirement of publishers and broadcasters to furnish returns on electoral advertisements. That was always an unnecessary duplication. (Time expired)

See this speech in context