Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am going to talk about the bill. What I am talking about, Minister, is the philosophy. The party that says, ‘We want to cut red tape,’ keeps introducing red tape, and it is going to result in people being disenfranchised on election night. I do not care how they vote, or how they want to vote; we should be about enfranchising not disenfranchising. The parts of this bill which are in relation to the trials, and other parts in relation to electronic voting, are to be welcomed. You were not here when I said earlier that parts of this bill are to be applauded because they do enfranchise.

The provision about voting for the visually impaired is to be welcomed. The pity is: it is in only 30 centres. It does not follow the recommendation of the standing committee that it should be in each electorate. I do not know whether that is a resource thing or not. But I know, for instance, when we did the two-candidate preferred vote when I was on the joint standing committee and it was recommended, there was a trial in part and then it was extended in a subsequent election.

What I would like to see eventually is that provision, if it proves successful, extended to every electorate in the country—not a random situation. So I applaud that, Minister, because it is about helping people who are disadvantaged and who have particular problems. We are there to assist them to get their vote and to get it right—unlike with previous amendments to the act where funding was cut and there were problems with Aboriginal education and other things, in the earlier days of this government. That has had some impacts. You would know, Minister, because of your involvement in the Northern Territory, how remote communities, Indigenous communities, need to be assisted. We made changes in relation to remote communities and made it easier for farmers in terms of postal votes and being on the registered list of postal voters. What true equality requires, Minister, is differential treatment for the disadvantaged—to make us all equal in terms of voting—and, in relation to young people, an acknowledgement that, whilst they might be a bit slack, you do not refuse to cut them any slack, which will disenfranchise them.

Giving Australian Defence Force personnel the ability to cast a vote electronically is a terrific idea. We should make those special provisions. I do not care how much they cost. We should not apologise for them. In my view, if someone is prepared to put the uniform on for this country then we should do everything we can, whatever the cost, to ensure that they get a vote in an election determining the government of this country. So I applaud the government for those particular provisions in relation to defence personnel. I know that there are some more details to come about how these things will be implemented, and I have confidence in the minister, who has vast experience in electoral matters. He knows the significance of changes to the Electoral Act and of the drafting of regulation and what it means. He was also a distinguished chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

I also want to talk about some provisions that are not in the bill but were in the Joint Standing Committee’s recommendations in relation to postal votes and privacy of postal votes. I want to use this opportunity to add something in terms of my own personal experience because, whilst it is not in the legislation, it is something that the committee recommended be looked at. Recommendation 13, as the minister knows, said that a return to double envelopes would not be required. I did get a lot of complaints about the frustrations of postal voters in terms of the period of time they were forced to wait for their voting forms, and I was surprised that the forms designed did not ensure that individual privacy was protected. They did not do that at all.

I do not accept the part of recommendation 13 that says, ‘Let us not have a double envelope,’ in terms of privacy. I will tell you why, Minister: I scrutineered in the federal seat of Parramatta, and I was quite happy with the result; but, in relation to the one envelope, inadvertent as it was, there was a situation in which privacy was not protected because of the way the envelope was cut open and the ballot paper was taken out. The name was exposed. It was not intentional, and I drew it to the attention of the returning officer and it was fixed. I know, because I was there and witnessed it. But the potential was there. It was not deliberate, but it was shown with that one envelope, in the way it was designed and the way that the ballot paper was taken out. It was taken out inadvertently face-up and not face-down, because they were being unfolded. That needs to be looked at, because privacy is an issue.

I have concerns, and I raise the issue with you now, Minister, because it is not contained in the package of legislation that is before us, but you are entitled to know of my experience in relation to it. I do not blame anyone for that. It was not intentional; it was unintentional. We need to look, when we look at these procedures, at not just intentional but unintentional things in relation to some of the people handling the processing of the ballot papers and things like that, because it is the process that can actually guarantee the integrity of the privacy and prevent a little thing like that.

I think there has been an increase in red-tape provisions, but I do not want to dwell on that. The proof will be in the pudding. I say this to the minister and to the government. You have the numbers in the House of Representatives and you have the numbers in the Senate. It will go through. I have a plea to you. You say you are doing this with honourable intentions. We will take you on face value in relation to that. If a problem arises, I am sure, Minister, if you are in charge, that you will genuinely look at fixing it. I am not trying to cry wolf or say the sky is falling in. What I want is the maintenance of what is one of the best electoral systems in the world, and red tape can make it very difficult.

It is like the Langer amendment. The provisions to overcome Mr Langer’s conduct disenfranchised many more voters than the provisions that were there previously. We used a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. We are sitting back and saying we are proud of the current system, but actually a lot more people are disenfranchised than were disenfranchised by what Langer did. I was not on the committee then, and I think that those provisions were put in genuinely by members of the committee, but that is a classic example. If you look at the figures—and I asked a number of questions in relation to this when I was on the committee—what we did actually disenfranchised a lot more voters than the earlier provisions did.

According to the explanatory memorandum, the deadline by which postal vote applications must be received in order to be processed is 6 pm on the Thursday—that is, two days before polling. I do not like that provision. I understand the problems of applications coming in in the last couple of days. I have been intimately involved in election scrutineering—and so have you, Minister—for the last 30 years. My concern with that provision is that it will mean fewer not more voters. It will divert the energies of the electoral officials in terms of what you are asking them to do in those last couple of days to overcome that earlier deadline. There are other provisions there, as you know, that say that they will attempt to make contact.

In terms of the problems that the provisions may bring about, the solution may well be worse than the current situation. I have asked you to have a look at that again genuinely after the election. I think this will create some problems. The truth is that there are limited resources and the last couple of days are days of frenetic and frenzied activity in electoral offices. I know and you know that pre poll has been relaxed over the years and more people are actually voting pre poll. Where we can, a lot of us encourage people who might have been postal voters to vote pre poll. But I do not like that provision because I think on balance it will mean more disenfranchisement.

I am quite proud of the Australian Electoral Commission as a result of all the experience I have had with them and their officers and their professionalism, when I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and from seeing the diligence with which they conduct elections. They are the best in terms of our democracy and our national system, properly resourced. My returning officer for the electorate of Banks, Doug Clarke, I think is one of the best in the business and has been on a number of occasions involved in elections overseas as a result of his expertise. There are many like him through the electoral process.

I know that on some of the issues in this bill the minister is well intentioned. With respect to the other bill, I think that certain people—not necessarily you, Minister—have had an obsession with wanting to go down a particular track. Quite frankly, I think that experienced hands like you, Minister, need to stand up to them.

In terms of the Electoral Act, I believe it is imperative that we as a parliament attempt at all times to achieve bipartisan support. I do not have any time for those party apparatchiks who want to bring in provisions that, in their view, might favour one side or the other and who are too smart by half. There are provisions—not in this legislation—that are like that. We are seeing in Iraq today people putting their lives on the line for democracy and the right to vote, which is precious, which should be encouraged, which should be protected and which should be preserved, irrespective of which way you are going to vote.

As I said earlier, with respect to the vulnerable in our community, the itinerants and others, I do not apologise for supporting special provisions in relation to them because of their special needs and problems, as long as we are sure that they are exercising their free will and that it is the particular person involved who is exercising the vote. As I said, there are some provisions here that I applaud because I think they are taking us into new areas of the Electoral Act for the right reasons—enfranchisement, not disenfranchisement. To me, that is what it is all about.

See this speech in context