Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in opposition to the government’s Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005, because it weakens our democracy in several ways. The member for Fremantle has spoken eloquently about the issue of donations to political parties. This legislation increases the allowable donation threshold and raises the tax deductability threshold. But there are two other things that this legislation does that I believe also weaken democracy considerably. Firstly, the legislation makes it significantly harder for people to vote, by closing the electoral roll at the announcement of the election. Secondly, it makes it significantly harder for people to vote, by requiring a drivers licence or some other photo identification before they are able to cast their vote. These measures will significantly disenfranchise many hundreds of thousands of young people particularly. I oppose these measures wholeheartedly.

The argument that the government puts forward is that these measures will ensure the integrity of the electoral roll. I do not think this is about the integrity of the electoral roll at all; I think it is about disenfranchising young people, who do not, by and large, vote for the Howard government. The solution to the electoral enrolment process, according to the government, is to close the electoral roll on the day the election is called; not give people the ability to update their correct enrolment details; not give people—particularly young people—the chance to enrol in the days after an election is called; and, as I said earlier, have people provide a drivers licence or other photo ID before they can cast a vote.

Why are they doing this? Is there enormous proven fraud with regard to the electoral roll? Certainly not. You would be forgiven for thinking that examples of fraud must be widespread for the government to initiate this bill and to put forward these arguments for the bill. The arguments from the government have been all about integrity. It seems curious, then, to actually prevent people from fixing up their electoral enrolment once the election has been called, to prevent people from correcting their wrong addresses once the election has been called. How does that contribute to integrity?

There have been several significant parliamentary committee examinations of the electoral roll and electoral fraud, and there is not a single credible authority on electoral matters that supports the government’s changes in this area. Professor Brian Costar, who is a researcher at the Swinburne Institute for Social Research and a well-known academic and expert on electoral matters, told the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee that the notion that there is widespread fraud is a ‘conspiracy theory’. In his evidence to the committee he rejected the notion:

... 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 ...

Indeed, a comprehensive review of the roll in 2002 by the Australian National Audit Office concluded:

... overall, the Australian electoral roll is one of high integrity, and ... can be relied on for electoral purposes.

Even Minister Abetz is on the record saying that there is little evidence of fraud of our electoral roll. He said that as late as last October in a speech to the Sydney Institute. The acknowledged experts are the Australian Electoral Commission, the people that actually administer the roll and run our election day voting. In their submission to the 2000 parliamentary inquiry into the integrity of the electoral roll, the Australian Electoral Commission said:

... early close of the rolls will not improve the accuracy of the rolls for an election … 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.

In 2001 the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducted a thorough investigation into the integrity of the roll and found that, in the five federal elections and one referendum to the year 2001, there were 72 million ballot papers cast and just 71 known cases of false enrolments. You really can say that known fraud is one in a million. These fraud rates seem even more ridiculous when you consider that the Australian Electoral Commission does not consider that any of them were deliberate attempts to corrupt or influence an electoral outcome. Professor Costar, whom I quoted earlier, and Peter Browne are both researchers at the Swinburne Institute for Social Research. They said in the Age on 4 April 2006 that last year:

... when it made its first submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election, the AEC expressed no concern whatsoever about the workload it faces at each election, when voters are given seven days’ grace to enrol or to update their enrolments. Nor did it express its support for the argument that the last-minute rush of enrolments creates opportunities for electoral fraud. Although several members of the committee repeatedly returned to the issue, they failed to persuade the commission to support the closure of the electoral roll as soon as the prime minister calls an election.

It is difficult to understand why the government would persist in the face of opposition from the people who are charged with administering the electoral roll and polling on voting day. If they say that it is not too big a workload for them, who is the government to say that it is too big a workload for them? The Electoral Commission is also quoted as saying last year:

This expected outcome is in direct conflict with the stated policy intention of the Government to improve the accuracy of the rolls. Further, it will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the franchise, an outcome which the AEC cannot support.

I want to repeat that: the AEC say that they cannot support this proposal.

I am advised that since 1940 the average gap between the calling of an election and the closing of the roll has been more than 19 days. Allowing people to enrol or fix up their enrolment in those 19 days has had no demonstrable ill impact on the quality of the roll. Indeed, in our most recent election in 2004, we saw almost 1.7 million 18- to 25-year-olds enrol to vote for the first time. In the seven days after the writs were issued for the 2004 election, 78,000 people enrolled to vote for the first time. Under this proposal, those 78,000 people would not have had the chance to vote for the first time. Why would you want to disenfranchise these 18-year-olds? Why would you want to stop them voting for the first time? Another 345,000 people updated their details in 2004 in the seven days after the writs were issued. In fact, once the roll actually closed after that seven-day window, another 150,000 tried to enrol or fix up their enrolment details. If this proposed law goes ahead then those 78,000 kids enrolling for the first time would have been excluded from voting, as would many of the 345,000 people who sought to update their electoral enrolment details. Given that there were 150,000 people still trying to enrol after the closing of the roll, you could make a pretty strong argument that in fact you should extend the period rather than shorten it.

If you look at the 1983 federal election, the only election since the Second World War where the roll was closed on the same day that the election was called, you will see that there were some 90,000 people who found themselves unable to vote because they had not been enrolled at the time of the announcement of the election. The Electoral Commission noted at the time that the effect of this was seen on election day, when there was much confusion, with many provisional votes issued and major inconvenience to the Electoral Commission polling booth workers. (Extension of time granted) These changes both are unnecessary and will weaken our democracy and the integrity of our electoral system. They will disenfranchise young people and contribute to the roll that does not have the most recent addresses and details for voters.

See this speech in context