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

I did not support the measures with regard to prisoner voting that eventually passed the parliament that only those serving sentences over three years be excluded from the roll. This was a reduction from the original five years in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. As the reduction to three years was passed by both houses, I am willing to retain that compromise in my amendments to remove the government’s total exclusion of anyone serving a custodial sentence, regardless of whether it is two months or two years, from the electoral roll and to retain the status quo. This policy is designed to do nothing more than further enhance the electorate’s perception that the government is tough on crime and criminals. Sure, but it is too tough, I would believe, in excluding all prisoners from a right to a vote, which should in any humane society be part of a rehabilitation process.

I said before in this place that some people commit crimes and are not jailed but retain the right to vote. Some are jailed and later found to be innocent. The blanket disenfranchisement ignores the reality of our justice system, which is that it is imperfect and fallible. From my experience in Calare, unless we pay particular attention to the rehabilitation of prisoners and offer them rights which they can appreciate as rights—indeed, their participation in a fundamental process in our society—it will only further cement behaviour which will continue to be antisocial and which will exacerbate crime. It will certainly have a more negative outcome in the long run.

I draw the House’s attention to the Indigenous prisoner population, which is a huge percentage—up to 30 per cent—of the prison population in Bathurst jail. Indigenous prisoners make up 22 per cent of our prison population, which is up from 14.2 per cent in 1992. This statistic is screaming out at us. Here is something that needs to be attended to. Having spent time with those incarcerated in Kirkconnell, Bathurst and Lithgow jails, I believe many of those people recognise they have made a mistake and many of them would want the right to have a say as part of the rehabilitation process and not one that encourages recidivism.

In a similar vein my amendments (6) to (15), (17) and (18) will retain the status quo in respect of the closure of the roll seven days after the election writ is issued. This would avoid the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of Australians who will enrol or change their enrolment. Much of this has been covered in other debate. I would only say that it is a better process to have students and young people in my electorate engage when the election is called and then take part in that election than to have them take no part whatever in the process. (Extension of time granted)

Finally, as the AEC has consistently stated in past inquiries into electoral matters, the commission is not of the view that so-called last-minute enrolments overburden it nor present a risk to the integrity of the roll. There has not been support for early closure of the roll from the AEC. In this debate it has been suggested that in the Senate inquiry into the bill the commissioner reversed this long-held opinion. I have looked at the Hansard of the inquiry and I am satisfied that, far from supporting the early closure of the roll, the current commissioner merely gave his opinion on the impact the early closure of the roll would have on the commission and its workload. I seek support for these amendments and I will be seeking a division. I will be moving subsequent amendments.

See this speech in context