Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to place on the record my fierce opposition to clauses contained within the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005. Whilst I recognise that I am not here for a counselling session, I must say that I am deeply saddened and deeply angered by the fact that our national parliament is debating these measures. On several occasions since my election I have been in this House and seen the government putting their own self-interest ahead of the national interest. I have seen this with the sale of Telstra; I have seen this with industrial relations. But what we are doing here today is watching the government try and put their own self-interest ahead of our nation’s democracy, and I think that is an extreme low.

The proposed electoral and referendum amendment bill is little more than a political stunt by the coalition, and the intended changes are merely an extension of the Liberal Party’s ideological agenda. The Australian government is planning to push through ideological changes that will make it harder to vote but easier to donate, and the Labor Party will not stand for it. These proposals have long been part of Liberal Party policy. We saw it in 2004 and we are seeing it today. Once again the Australian government is using its control of the Senate to ram through its ideological changes.

My view is that when the Australian Electoral Commission, Australia’s expert on electoral and democratic matters, repeatedly warns the government that a piece of legislation would be immensely damaging to democracy the government should probably heed that advice. In a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in 2002, the AEC again expressed its concern about any change to abolish or shorten the period between the issue of the writs and the close of the roll. The AEC remarked:

That period clearly serves a useful purpose for many electors, whether to permit them to enrol for the first time … or to correct their enrolment to their current address so that they can vote in the appropriate electoral contest …

The AEC considers it would be a backward step to repeal the provision which guarantees electors this seven-day period in which to correct their enrolment. It is about time the government took its head out of the sand and started listening to the AEC—and the rest of Australia, for that matter. In the inquiry into the bill conducted by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, 35 of the 52 submissions received by the committee were strongly opposed to this move, with only three—those of the Festival of Light and the Liberal and the National parties—in support of it.

These proposals make it easier to buy influence in the democratic process but harder for our constituents to exercise their democratic rights, and Australia knows it. The only people supporting this bill are those who stand on the other side of the chamber, and it is publicly known that they have been so blinded with arrogance that they cannot see that this is the most ridiculous piece of electoral reform ever introduced.

I would like to further reflect on the proposal for the early closure of the electoral roll. These changes will not just be a backward step but in fact a backward leap. These amendments propose to close the electoral roll at 8 pm on the third working day after the issue of the writs. However, as we know, the roll would effectively close at 8 pm on the day the writ is issued, because most people not on the roll between that time and 8 pm on the third day will not be added.

Amongst the constituents who will be most impacted by these changes will be young people, and I believe that, at a time when there is so much talk about a vast apathy towards politics amongst young Australians, reducing their democratic rights is outrageous. I have heard personally from high school teachers in my electorate how hard it is already to get young people to enrol to vote, as many think there is no point and that politicians are unrepresentative of their needs and attitudes.

It is estimated that around 80 per cent of eligible Australians aged between 18 and 25 are currently registered on the Australian electoral roll and are thus significantly less likely to be on the roll than other Australians. To be honest, when these reforms are introduced I will not blame the youth for taking such a stance or for holding these beliefs. Already they are a part of society that feels excluded by politics, and now they will feel even more so when they forget to enrol to vote, suddenly an election is called and they are stripped of any further opportunities to exercise their democratic rights. I passionately believe that as members of this House we should be out there encouraging our constituents to get more involved in the political process, not making it harder. Each of us goes about this in a different way. Personally, I am passionate about getting out and about in my electorate, being as accessible as possible and making it as easy as possible for the electors of Adelaide to have their say. But this government is heading in the exact opposite direction.

In the seven days after the writ was issued for the 2004 election, 78,000 people enrolled for the first time, and 345,000 updated their details after the seven-day period. A further 150,000 tried to enrol. Under the proposed law, all of the 78,000 will be excluded from voting, as will a certain percentage of the 345,000. Clearly a majority of those 78,000 people who enrolled for the first time in 2004 were young people. If those 78,000 people were denied their right to vote in 2004, as the government had intended, then I think it is pretty likely that most, if not all, of them would have harboured a certain cynicism towards politics for a long time to come. Our democracy must be an inclusive one. Thus, if anything, the period of grace between the issue of the writs and the closure of the roll should be extended, not shortened. Any change to this system will be a regressive blow to Australia’s democratic system. To advocate these changes as a positive development is laughable.

This government really is amazing—and I do not say that in a positive sense. Comparable Western democracies are actually trying to increase the electoral participation of young people—a possibility never considered by the Australian government, it seems. For instance, Canada allows young people to enrol on the day when they turn up to vote, and New Zealand gives them until the day before the election to enrol. In New Zealand young people can now ask for their enrolment form through a free text message, which has proven to be a popular option. But, unlike Canada and unlike New Zealand, the Australian government will be telling its youth that it will be closing its electoral roll for new voters far earlier than comparable democracies and at least 33 days before an election.

We have heard Minister Nairn and Minister Abetz suggesting that Labor has no point for argument because at both state and territory levels it closes the roll early. However, in several states, including my home state of South Australia, there are fixed term elections, so there is plenty of notice of an approaching election. Thus, at this level the closing of the roll not pose a threat to democracy.

Yesterday in this place the member for Prospect called on the government, if it pursued these measures, to commit itself to an advertising campaign to inform people of the changes to the law and to let people know that, if they move house or turn 18, they will be obliged to update their enrolment immediately to maintain their right to vote. I absolutely support these sentiments, but I would also say that, if the government is worried about the historical trend of young Australians not supporting the coalition, perhaps its efforts could be better directed in another area. Perhaps it could address policy concerns which young people are passionate about. Perhaps it could stop attacking young Australians by stripping them of quality education and of trades and skills. But instead the government has chosen another path.

The bill also includes an increased requirement for identification on enrolment, a provision even stricter than that introduced with the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2004. These clauses are completely unwarranted. In the JSCEM report, the majority of the committee advised that no evidence has been produced justifying updating the 2004 act with an even stricter requirement. Rather it will mean that the AEC will just have to spend extra time processing applications due to the range of verifying documentation. This would create a backlog of applications in the period prior to the closing of the roll, impeding the AEC’s ability to perform its job properly. These so-called moves to ‘tighten up enrolment’ are likely to diminish the comprehensiveness of the roll and have a disproportionate impact on young and disadvantaged sections of the community. In fact, they are likely to exacerbate existing problems of underenrolment in these groups.

Requirements for new enrollees have been strongly resisted by state Labor governments due to both the cost and inconvenience of increased identification. These obstacles are absolutely not required. In 2002 the National Audit Office found over 96 per cent accuracy of information, which rose to over 99 per cent when matched against Medicare data. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever of corruption or fraudulent behaviour in our system, surely our efforts are better spent making it easier rather than harder for Australians to be involved in the political system.

I would like to turn to the proposed changes to the disclosure thresholds. The government has proposed changes to the thresholds for disclosing donations to political parties and candidates from $1,500 to $10,000. Such a change will diminish the transparency of the disclosure laws remarkably and mean that further donations to parties and candidates will go undisclosed. The Australian people have every right to know who holds influence over the government and how much influence they have. In a liberal democracy such as ours we cannot afford to make changes that ebb transparency. This proposition has no real merits. The current threshold of $1,500 has so far ensured adequate transparency and, at the very minimum, must be maintained. The Labor Party will continue to fight for transparency in the political system.

Today the government has argued that these measures will encourage participation in the democratic process by providing tax relief. But the ability to donate money should not and must not be a requirement for participation in political debate. Increasing the disclosure threshold to more than $10,000 will create such a gap in the disclosure scheme that describing this as a ‘loophole’ is laughable. Parties will be able to accept larger sums without disclosing details of the donor. This renders the whole notion of disclosure thresholds meaningless. Further, if a donor decides to contribute to all of the state, territory and federal divisions of the same party, $90,000 a year will remain hidden from the general public.

The suggestion that a $10,000 sum is not large enough to create risks of corruption or influence is absurd because donations of around this amount have initiated previous controversies. Eighty per cent of donations received by major parties in 2004-05 were $10,000 or under, thus almost $25 million could be hidden from the public view—therefore 80 per cent of donations would not be disclosed if this bill were enacted. An increase to $1,500 also skews political influence to the wealthier in society. Higher earning individuals will also receive a proportionally higher, taxpayer funded subsidy.

I would like to make note of Peter van Onselen’s contribution to the Democratic Audit at the ANU, where he stated:

We seem to have reached a state where politics is so replete with unethical behaviour that the prostitution of democracy is publicly promoted by some political leaders.

By changing the disclosure thresholds, the Howard government certainly is prostituting our democracy. We need to be closing the loopholes that incite corruption, not extending them.

In this debate it is important that we also touch on the provisions in this bill relating to third parties. The bill attacks the free speech of charities and community groups while imposing a financial burden that may be unsustainable. The government has argued that, when community organisations spend money on campaigns that coincide with ALP policies, they are effectively campaigning in favour of the ALP. These provisions are ludicrous. In a healthy democracy we should be encouraging community organisations and those third parties at the forefront in viewing and studying the consequences of government action or inaction to speak out and enrich the national debate on these issues.

By changing the definition of an electoral matter, charity and community groups will be unable to make a reference to past or present public policy issues. Donors and the public are likely to make fewer donations, to avoid being labelled as partisan political players. To inflate the problem, the government is planning to create yet another administrative burden for these groups by requiring them to file annual returns with the AEC. Senator George Brandis may have argued that these would be ‘unintended consequences’, but they are consequences nevertheless. The government has acknowledged these flaws, yet it will not do anything about fixing them. What we have here is an utterly complacent and insensitive government—a government which is more intent on silencing any opposing voices than on reaching the best possible outcomes for our community.

I want to turn briefly to the issue of prisoner disenfranchisement. This bill proposes to deny the vote to any person serving a sentence of imprisonment, but those released on parole or a similar scheme will still be entitled to vote. As it stands currently, those serving sentences of less than three years are allowed to vote. Based on 2004 figures, the total number of people disenfranchised under the new provision will be 19,236. The number of people allowed to vote under the existing provisions but disenfranchised under the proposed provisions is 9,375. It is clear, therefore, that these provisions will exclude another section of the Australian community, and I think that is worthy of some reflection by this chamber. There is, of course, an argument that prisoners, upon committing a crime, have already made the decision to exclude themselves from our community and therefore the right to participate in our democracy.

I think that it is important for this House to also consider the best interests of the community in this matter, though. Our criminal justice system aims to punish criminals and to rehabilitate them. One must question whether further excluding prisoners, removing them even further from the society that they are soon to rejoin, will in fact aid their rehabilitation. The prisoners who are disenfranchised by this legislation are the very prisoners who will be rejoining our communities in less than three years time. At a time when we ideally should be encouraging prisoners upon their release to become active, community minded individuals who are keen to make amends for their crimes, is it really wise to be cutting them off further from society and ensuring that they cannot play any role in our civic responsibilities?

In addition to these philosophical arguments there are some strong legal points that must be considered in this debate. In 2002 in Canada the Supreme Court found that disenfranchisement of prisoners under the Canada Elections Act was in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the UK in 2004 and 2005 the European Court of Human Rights found that the United Kingdom’s denial of voting rights to all prisoners was ‘arbitrary and harsh’ and thus in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This bill arguably places Australia in breach of its obligations under article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 25 provides that:

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity ... without unreasonable restrictions:

(a)

To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b)

To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

One may argue that this is just another international agreement that has been ridiculed by the Australian government. This parliament must also be mindful of the Australian Constitution, which states that members of the Australian parliament will be ‘chosen by the people’. Measures that exclude large numbers of Australians from our political process cannot be taken lightly by this chamber.

Before I conclude I would like to acknowledge the increased powers for the AEC in the form of more power to access information held by government agencies, which may help to improve the integrity of the electoral roll. I would also like to pass on my support for the requirements that the AEC divisional offices must be located within divisional boundaries and for the plan to bring internet sites in line with regulations regarding paid electoral advertising. But just because there are some positive aspects of this bill does not mean it should be passed willy-nilly without properly addressing the aspects which seriously erode our democracy.

This government conveniently chops and changes its commitment to democracy. This government hypocritically hailed the virtues of democracy when it was clutching for reasons to justify our involvement in the war in Iraq after the initial reasons fell through, yet at the very same time back home it is hacking away at the provisions within our own electoral system that ensure power for the people and that uphold a truly wonderful democracy.

When it comes to elections, governments all over the world have a choice. They can attempt to win elections by appealing to their constituents, by looking after those who need looking after and by ensuring that no-one is limited in their economic and personal aspirations. They can win by having a solid track record that clearly demonstrates they have done the best job they could. Alternatively, governments can lie, they can use wedge tactics, they can simply forget their own errors and hope the Australian people will too and they can carefully pick away at their nation’s democracy to try and gain a partisan advantage. It does not take a genius to work out which sort of government we have here and which route it is choosing to go down. Unfortunately, the government will probably get these laws through and they will come into effect. But the day they come into effect will be a very sad day for Australia and it will mark a massive erosion of our democracy. I think that will be a sad day and that this chamber should avoid it at all costs.

See this speech in context