Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow my parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Indi. The Review of certain aspects of the administration of the Australian Electoral Commission report makes some reasonable and not very controversial recommendations about the administration of the AEC, and I am sure that an incoming government will give them due consideration. Historically, I too think it would be a pity to abolish the national tally room. As the member for Indi indicated, the presentation of this report gives me an opportunity to discuss electoral matters, presumably for the last time in this parliament since it is obvious that we are about to embark on an election campaign. As the election approaches, both the Australia Electoral Commission and the Australian Labor Party have launched advertisements urging people to enrol to vote. The AEC always runs such campaigns before elections, but this time the message is more urgent because of the changes made last year to the Electoral Act by the Howard government. These changes abolished the traditional five-day period of grace for eligible Australians to enrol when an election is called. For first-time voters the rolls will now close as soon as the writs for the election are issued. Labor opposed this change, which we argued was a step backwards for our democracy. We argued that in a country with compulsory voting it is undemocratic to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of people’s ability to enrol and vote. We estimate that even after the AEC’s campaign at least 100,000 people—mostly first-time voters—will not be enrolled and will lose their vote because of this change. That is about 800 to 900 per seat. For the 2004 election, 136,000 people used the five-day period to enrol.

The government argues that this had to be stopped to prevent electoral fraud, but during the long parliamentary inquiry into the changes it produced no evidence to back up this claim. I would point out that I attended nearly every hearing all around Australia, unlike the member for Indi. Australia has one of the cleanest electoral systems in the world. Electoral fraud was merely an excuse for these retrograde changes—an excuse that fools no-one. If, even after the advertising campaign, the same numbers of 18- to 25-year-olds are not enrolled, this will be a democratic scandal—a scandal that could easily have been avoided by leaving in place the current system that works. A Labor government would reverse these undemocratic restrictions. Of course, everyone should enrol as soon as they become eligible, but the fact is that most 18-to 25-year-olds are absorbed in things other than politics. Some of them leave enrolment until the election is called. The AEC has testified before several inquiries that it has no problem with voters having that right. Labor agrees and, if elected, will restore that right.

But Labor wants to go further than just reversing these undemocratic changes. We want to expand Australia’s democracy to make it more effective and better equipped to serve the needs of the Australian people. That is why we want the federal parliament to move to fixed four-year terms—the same system that operates successfully in Victoria and many other places. This will produce a government less driven by short-term electoral advantage and also remove the Prime Minister’s right to pick an election date that suits his party.

I often disagree with the Melbourne Agein fact, today I have an article published in another newspaper which is critical of the Agebut I thoroughly agree with their editorial yesterday on this issue. It argues:

That the Prime Minister still determines the election date, and leaves the country on tenterhooks while he makes up his mind, is something that requires revision in the light of recent days. The country at large has been in stasis because of the internal wrangling of a political party that happens to be the Government. The best way to avoid a recurrence is to adopt fixed terms—four years is more likely to encourage effective government than three—with a set election date.

Labor also wants to revive the debate about Australia’s head of state, which has lost momentum since the 1999 referendum. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined a staged process to move this issue forward, with a plebiscite to gain agreement on a model for an Australian head of state, then moving to a referendum to decide the issue. A referendum on fixed four-year terms could be held at the same time.

Australia has one of the world’s most advanced democratic systems, but we will only keep it if we resist all attempts to undermine it for political advantage. The Howard government has been driven purely by its own self-interest in closing the electoral roll and effectively disenfranchising young people in particular, who it does not think will vote for it. A Labor government will reverse these undemocratic changes, restore fairness to our electoral and parliamentary systems, and move to make them even better.

See this speech in context