Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 should be renamed the ‘Changing of the Democratic Function in Australia Bill’ or the ‘Harder to Vote, Easier to Donate Bill’. This is classic Howard government legislation. It is driven by a government with the ideology that it is born to rule. It is the belief of the government that it is the party of government and the ALP should be the party of opposition. This legislation puts in place a structure to achieve this. It is a step along the way to ensuring that the Howard government has ultimate control of the political process in Australia. The Howard government will do whatever it takes to get this control, so another name we could give this legislation is the ‘Whatever it Takes Bill’. The bill makes it harder for ordinary Australians—the people who decide who should be the government of the day—to vote, particularly once an election has been called. Only one word can describe this legislation: disgraceful. It is disgraceful legislation which makes it easier for the government’s mates to donate to the government without disclosing their donation. It also increases the tax deductibility of a donation—and I will go into that in more detail as I discuss the legislation.

Whilst I oppose many of the provisions in this legislation, I do support the increased power being given to the AEC and the requirement that AEC divisional offices be located within divisional boundaries. Currently, the divisional office for the electorate of Shortland is outside the boundary, and I find that difficult. I think it is a very poor situation for an AEC divisional office to be allowed—or forced—to operate outside divisional boundaries. The government has renegotiated the lease and ensured that the AEC divisional office in Shortland remains outside the boundary, so I welcome the change in this bill. Another change that I think is important is to bring internet sites in line with the regulations for paid electoral advertising.

This bill seeks to change—the government uses the word ‘reform’, but I would say the changes are retrograde—voter enrolment practices, financial disclosure and tax deductibility thresholds for political donators, and financial reporting obligations for third parties associated with entities, broadcasters and publishers. There are changes to the requirements, as I mentioned, relating to internet advertising and the AEC. There are also changes relating to political registration, and the nominal deposits for election candidates will increase to $500 for House of Representatives candidates and $1,000 for Senate candidates.

The areas that I am particularly concerned about are voter registration, relating to the identification that is required, and the closure of the electoral roll. I also have some concerns about the right of prisoners to vote. I am also extremely concerned about the disclosure provisions, and I will deal with those first. This legislation increases the non-disclosable amount that can be donated to a candidate or a political party from $1,500 to $10,000. That means that a company or an individual can donate a non-disclosable $10,000 to a particular political party. If you look at this in a historical context, this provision will bring the percentage of the total donations disclosed down from 75 per cent, or $78 million, under the current regime to 58 per cent in the 2004 election—so just over half the donations to political parties will be put on the public record.

You might ask why this is important. I think it is very important because it is important for the people of Australia to know who is donating to political parties. The people of Australia have a right to know if individuals or big corporations, trade unions or whatever organisations they may be are making a donation to a political party, because large donations have the potential to influence the policies and direction of a government. I am not saying that they do, but large donors will always find that they have easy access to the government of the day and as such the people of Australia need to know and have a right to know who the people that are making big donations to both sides of politics are. So I feel that provision of the bill is a retrograde step. I see this increase to $10,000, which will be indexed, as having the ability to pervert the course of democracy within Australia.

The next thing that I would like to touch on is the increase from $100 to $1,500 in the level of tax deductibility for contributions to political parties or independent candidates. If you donate to a political party, you do it because you believe that the political party or its candidate is the best one to represent you, your state or our nation. It seems quite strange to me that a person should be able to claim a tax deduction for following through on their belief in or their commitment to a particular ideology, party or candidate, so I do not believe that provision is the right way to go. I think that tax deductibility allows those people that have a little bit more disposable income to influence the political process.

That brings me to what I think are two of the most important provisions of this legislation: the identification requirements that will apply to voters needing to enrol and the early closing of the electoral roll once the writs have been issued for an election. Under this piece of legislation, the government seeks to introduce proof of identity requirements for people enrolling or updating their enrolment which will mean that they will need to show a drivers licence. If they do not have a drivers licence, they can show some other prescribed identity document. If all else fails, they must have their enrolment application signed by two referees who are not related to the applicant, have known the applicant for at least one month and can provide a drivers licence. On the surface, people may say that is reasonable. But not everybody has that proof of identity. Older people in particular would struggle with that drivers licence requirement. I have had many constituents come to my office because they are required to have photographic identification and the fact that they do not have a drivers licence creates a problem.

That brings me to the secondary requirement. It is reasonable to expect a person to present that proof, provided they live the kind of life that members on the other side of this House do, but many people will be disenfranchised by this requirement. Those people living in Indigenous communities will find it very difficult to meet this requirement. The member for Lingiari has emphasised this fact to me on many occasions. Those people who are already disadvantaged, many of them being his constituents, will be disenfranchised by this legislation. Also, young people will find it more difficult to have the correct ID needed to enrol and homeless people and itinerant workers will also be extremely disadvantaged by this change to increase the identification requirement. Things will also be more difficult for provisional voters. The requirement will be more strict than it is now. They will have to abide by those changes and present their identification within the required period to the AEC.

I have always believed that we should encourage people to cast their vote and have a say about the direction in which our nation should go. But it seems to me that the government is actually discouraging people by making it harder for them to vote. The government has this belief that the people who will find it harder to meet these requirements tend to vote more for the opposition than for the government, so the government says, ‘Let’s see what we can do about making it more difficult for them to enrol to vote.’ Quite frankly, I do not think that is the way we should go. I believe we should be increasing the number of people that participate in the democratic process in our country.

I know that many people in Australia would be aware of the debate that has been raging within the government about removing compulsory voting. The government is once again driven by its philosophy that voting should be a choice and that the people who choose to vote are more likely to be those people who will vote for the government. When you look at figures in the United States, the United Kingdom and other overseas countries you see that less than 50 per cent of people vote in elections. I feel that that undermines the whole democratic process. I feel that the proof of identity requirements in this legislation are designed to limit people’s involvement in the political process.

Another issue which I feel is an absolute disgrace and one that will reduce the number of people who will have access to voting in elections is the early closing of the roll. Effectively, this change will mean that at 8 pm on the day that the writs are issued the roll will close. Currently, people have a seven-day period to enrol. The government undertakes a massive advertising campaign, encouraging people to register to vote. The government has decided to go in a different direction and will now discourage people from voting, because closing the roll at that particular time will disenfranchise a significant proportion of the population. Included in this bill is a more generous—if you can call it generous—requirement in that 17-year-olds who turn 18 between the day the writ is issued and polling day and people who will be granted citizenship in that time will have until 8 pm on the third day after the writ is issued to enrol.

Senator Abetz stated that there was a problem with the current-day rule. He said that it puts incredible pressure on the Australian Electoral Commission, and he went on to say that there is a rush to get on the roll after the calling of an election and that the level of scrutiny of applications simply cannot be what it is in a non-election period, when the AEC receives enrolments at a much more steady pace. That is quite contrary to the way that the AEC sees it. The AEC is on the record expressing its concern at the suggestion of abolishing or shortening the period between the issuing of writs. The AEC stated that the current-day rule does not place incredible pressure on the AEC, that it is quite up to handling it and that it is very important that this period be available for people to vary their enrolment.

The minority report following the 2004 election opposed that position. One of the problems associated with the early closing of the roll is that only 40 per cent of people advise the AEC in the first instance of enrolment entitlements or changes in accordance with the act. So it is only when an election is called that people realise they need to enrol. At the last election, nearly 300,000 people enrolled in that seven-day period. Under this legislation before the parliament today those people would have been disenfranchised. I do not think that is good enough. In this parliament we should be making it easier for people to vote. In this parliament we should be putting in place open and transparent legislation. To be honest: this legislation does neither of those things. This legislation makes things less transparent in that Australians will not be aware of which people donate to political parties, it increases the tax threshold for donations and it makes it much harder for the people of Australia to cast a vote.

I see this legislation as typical of the Howard government and its arrogant disregard for the people of Australia. I believe this legislation needs to be taken back to the party room and looked at again, and then brought back to this House in a form that actually increases the ability of people to participate in the democratic process and that improves openness and transparency.

See this speech in context