Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

in a very good speech describing this particular bill and the provisions in it as ‘partisan political advantage’ and ‘prejudice’. He used the terms ‘rort’ and ‘outrage’. The speaker who followed him said that this bill is not ‘a barbecue stopper’, that our electoral system is ‘100 per cent above reproach’ and, indeed, that it is transparent. I wonder how transparent a system is when party candidates who have had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on their campaign on their behalf can put in a nil return and the only way of trying to find out how much was spent on that campaign by that candidate is through looking at the media returns—in my case, in the electorate of Calare. We have a provision in this bill to exclude the media from providing those very details, yet we have people with the hide to describe these amendments and our electoral legislation as transparent.

In this place we say that we pride ourselves on our country’s democratic traditions. Key to true democracy is participation and transparency—participation by the people and transparency in the actions of their elected representatives and transparency in the very processes that determine how, why and under what circumstances support has been given and spent, whether it be in election periods or, indeed, with the privileges of public office. Participation and transparency should be encouraged and enhanced by every means possible. However, this bill is more about limiting participation and transparency than it is about encouraging it. It does nothing to enhance our democracy, our parliament and our electoral processes. In fact, I believe the bill separates the parliament and its representatives even further from the people and even closer to vested interest and the money that inevitably goes with it.

The bill is a comprehensive overhaul of our electoral laws. Despite the tenor of my opening remarks, which I do not resile from in any way, it does have some redeemable qualities, but they are very few. I do not have any problem with the provisions in regard to increasing the proof of identity requirements on enrolment. I made my support for this reform clear in debate on similar bills in the last parliament. I do not particularly have a position on the deregistration of parties provisions, save to say that I suspect that it is largely motivated by coalition party members to avoid situations such as the alleged misconduct of liberals for forests in the campaign for the seat of Richmond, as evidenced in the JSCEM report on the conduct of the 2004 election.

I do not support the changing of electoral laws simply because the coalition parties—or the ALP or any other party, for that matter—feel disadvantaged by the campaign of a competing political party. I have seen enough party material in my time as a candidate and sitting member to know that the parties will push the envelope of acceptability under electoral laws as hard as they can, as well as abusing what are only guidelines for use of the entitlements of office. The running of dummy Independent candidates would seem to me to be little different from the arguments raised against liberals for forests.

I do not, of course, have a problem with the equalisation of tax deductibility for donation rules to include Independent candidates. This has long been a disadvantage for Independent candidates, and this change will help level the playing field for those who choose to run on their own and who seek financial support—something I do not do, relying on my own resources and public funding, any balance of which I distribute to my electorate. I am a supporter of the symbolism of this amendment more than its practical effect, as I would be more than happy to see donations banned from politics altogether. I will be moving reforms that I hope will reduce the reliance on huge donations in the political sphere in Australia and bring democracy back to its basic principles where the best local candidate is elected because of their talents and commitment and not because of the size of their campaign budget or, indeed, the party shenanigans of branch stacking and other methods that are employed in various nuances by both major sides of politics to achieve factional objectives.

The bulk of this bill I cannot support. I will move amendments in the consideration in detail stage of the debate to remove the provisions that are contrary to the democratic principles so often espoused but so little practised. Obviously I do not expect much, indeed any, support for these amendments, but it is important that they be aired, and they will certainly be aired in as wide a forum as possible through any means possible—through the networking of Independents in their own constituencies to raise these issues leading up to state and federal elections in the next 18 months.

I will be moving to retain the seven-day window with regard to the closing of the roll once the writs for an election have been issued. I will move to retain the status quo with regard to prisoner voting rights and to retain the requirement that publishers and broadcasters lodge returns relating to electoral advertising—an absolutely crucial provision in this bill, which is completely contrary to claims of transparency in our electoral system. I will move to remove the increases to the disclosure thresholds and instate a disclosure threshold of $200 for all political donations. I will move to install a campaign expenditure cap so that no individual candidate’s campaign for the House of Representatives or the Senate can exceed a designated limit, regardless of the source of funding. Any general party advertising or campaign material, including that which does not specifically name a candidate, would have to be accounted for within the candidates’ campaign limits of that party. I will move to install a requirement that all candidates, regardless of party endorsement, lodge comprehensive returns of campaign expenditure for the election campaign period for that particular constituency, and I will move to remove above-the-line voting for the Senate ballot paper and provide for partial preferential voting for election of candidates to the Senate—and I will explain some of the reasons and background to those in the consideration in detail stage.

This bill, of course, had another incarnation in the last parliament. At that time, there were three bills: access to the electoral roll, enrolment integrity and prisoner voting. This time around, ‘integrity’ has been built into the title of a single bill, and the provisions of this bill make a mockery of that very word. Integrity means moral excellence and honesty. This would be a joke if it were not such a serious matter. This legislation is dishonest in the extreme, especially around the ceiling on donations to political parties before such donations need be declared.

It is sobering to note that in the last parliament the Senate amended the previous legislation to strike out early closure of the roll so as not to disenfranchise an estimated 375,000 mainly young people. I am puzzled by the contradictory position of the Electoral Commission on this point. In its 2005 submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 election, the commission showed no inclination to accept an early closure of the roll, yet 12 months later the commission, albeit with a new head, gave tacit approval to the changes contained within this bill. Why was seven days grace to enrol or update enrolment not a problem 12 months ago but now, according to the commissioner, the removal of this provision makes life easier for the commission?

I have a little story to illustrate this. Recently a 19-year-old constituent of mine was killed in a car accident near Molong. When I attempted to check on his electoral details and the address of his parents, whom I know, I found that his name was not on the roll. That is not surprising for a 19-year-old young fellow operating as young fellows do—driving, enjoying life, whether he be a student or a young apprentice. Come election time, young people of 19, 20 or even 21 suddenly realise that an election is coming up and that they have to get on the roll. This relates not only to this young fellow, sadly deceased, but to the 375,000 people, at last count, who move or who have very little interest, it may be said, in an election, in the political process, perhaps until an election occurs—and here we have a system that denies them an opportunity to register and vote.

The argument about the enrolment being some form of roll stacking has been debunked by Professor Brian Costar, as was pointed out by the member for Bruce when he made his contribution to this debate. Professor Costar is no lesser light in the world of electoral matters and, in evidence to the Senate, he said:

I think that this conspiracy theory ... that there is out there a vast army of villains who want to take advantage of every nook and cranny of the law to sign up phantom voters ... to rort the system is not based on evidence.

I would suggest that the evidence might be in the demographic research that has been done by the Liberal Party, perhaps, which has found that the voting intentions of these disenfranchised people may not necessarily be sympathetic to the conservative cause. Indeed, horror of horrors, they might well be young students, young people who may see an attraction in a vote for the Greens or, indeed, an Independent. I think it is more about deliberate exclusion—we can even go to that. It seems to me that it is not about roll stacking but about denying access to the roll, and access to the roll is a fundamental right of every individual in this society.

Back in 2000, in its submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the integrity of the electoral roll, the AEC said:

... the early close of rolls will not improve the accuracy of the rolls ... In fact, the expectation is that the rolls for the election will be less accurate, because less time will be available for existing electors to correct their enrolments and for new enrolments to be received.

I suppose the change in attitude is reflective of the change in the CEO of the commission, with former commissioner Andy Becker more willing to express an opinion than his replacement. I only hope that the new commissioner is candid in his reporting to the inquiry into the next election if, as I suspect, there are many thousands of people who miss a vote because they are unaware of these changes, which, as I say quite frankly, denies the franchise to a huge number of Australians. I will be moving an amendment to retain the status quo, allowing voters a sensible seven days grace to enrol or update their enrolment.

The last Senate struck out an attempt to double the threshold for reportable donations from $1,500 to $3,000. It also removed a provision that cancelled voting rights for any prisoner serving a full-time sentence. With full control of both houses, the government has now reintroduced all three provisions, as it did with the unfair dismissal threshold. It has increased not to $3,000 but to $10,000 the reportable donation threshold. It jumps to the extreme end of the spectrum as soon as it can, as it has done with industrial relations and with security laws. But wait, there is more to come. If the Minister for Finance and Administration—that advocate for even tougher workplace laws and the champion of non-compulsory voting—has his way, that will be next. The banning of prisoners from voting sends exactly the wrong message if we are truly serious about rehabilitating people to take an interest and a role in the processes of society—a society that has an Indigenous prison population of 22 per cent. I will further outline my concerns about this aspect of this bill in the consideration in detail stage when speaking to my amendments. I entertain no hope that the government will show the vaguest interest, but the proposed amendments outline the kind of electoral system we should have if we dare to call ourselves a true democracy.

The recent South Australian elections, in particular, and other state polls and by-elections in recent times have shown that people are searching for alternative representation to that by the major parties. In most states we now see a fair to large grouping of Independents, as voters seek and find representation with more relevance to the modern political reality of continuing engagement on issues rather than a winner take all for three or four years. The above-the-line process in our Senate voting system, with its due preferential process, delivers a distorted outcome, as evidenced at the last election. Any fair system would surely provide, at the very least, for below-the-line-only voting—in fact, there should be no line at all—with partial preferencing. Voters then need choose only the number of candidates required to fill the vacancy and, if so desired, can indicate further preferences. This and other matters that should be in a so-called electoral integrity bill I will cover when I move my amendments.

I must express dismay that, despite the heartfelt words of the member for Banks and the logic, coherence and sense of his comments, we have nothing more than a second reading amendment from the opposition here; indeed, it includes opposition to several of the measures that, by any objective observer, may be regarded as reasonable. The Labor Party have described the proof of identity requirements as undemocratic provisions; I wonder what they are on about. They mention the disclosure thresholds being increased to $10,000 as undemocratic provisions and I agree. They refer to the tax deductibility of political donations. As I have said, to level the playing field to a certain degree, that may be necessary. But, if you put a cap on the spend, you automatically trigger, as best you can, a cap on the donation. That is what constituencies around the world—notably New Zealand and, I believe, the UK—have in place to ensure, as much as the political party process will allow, that people have something resembling an even opportunity to stand for parliament.

I condemn this bill. It is designed to shore up a crumbling and discredited two-party electoral system.

See this speech in context