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

by leave—the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto includes 53 recommendations, many of which are designed to restore and protect the franchise to those entitled to exercise it ,and to modernise electoral processes.

That 45 of the 53 recommendations were unanimous reflects the committee’s focus on finding ways that our democracy can work better and the cooperative way that the committee went about conducting the inquiry. Key recommendations on modernising the electoral system include: counting more of the votes cast before polling day on polling night, and facilitating electronic transactions between electors and the Australian Electoral Commission to modernise the way that the commission interacts with electors.

The committee has made a number of recommendations that reinstate several longstanding provisions that protect the franchise, such as restoring the seven-day enrolment period from the issue of the writs to the close of rolls for the election. Opposition members have opposed the recommendations on the basis that they weaken the integrity of the electoral roll and reward complacency. However, a careful analysis of the integrity argument put forward by opposition members reveals that it is without substance, with the Australian Electoral Commission telling the committee that in relation to false identities there has never been any evidence of widespread or organised enrolment fraud in Australia. Detailed examination by the Australian Electoral Commission reveals that relatively few cases of multiple voting are found to be deliberate attempts to vote on multiple occasions and are referred to the AFP. Only 64 cases of apparent multiple voting were referred to the Australian Federal Police arising from the 2004 election, and only 10 cases were referred following the 2007 election. These figures do not warrant disenfranchising potentially hundreds of thousands of otherwise eligible electors.

In relation to prisoners, the committee has recommended that the Commonwealth Electoral Act be amended to reflect the High Court’s Roach decision that all persons serving a sentence of full-time imprisonment are ineligible to vote, reinstating the previous three-year disqualification that applied prior to 2006. The opposition members of the committee have suggested that the disqualification should be set at prisoners serving custodial sentences of one year or more, arguing that this would align the voting disqualification with the disqualification from being a member of parliament. However, a majority of the committee considers that the three-year threshold strikes a better balance.

A large number of submissions were received from Australian citizens living overseas who considered that they should be extended the franchise on the basis of their Australian citizenship alone. While such a franchise does exist in a number of countries such as Italy and New Zealand, the committee considers that citizenship should not be the sole qualification for the franchise. A 21-day rule regarding living at an address underpins representation in the 150-member House of Representatives, the basis for deciding which party or parties will form the government of the day. The committee has therefore endorsed the current arrangements relating to registration and updating enrolment, as they provide an appropriate and valid form of measuring a continued interest in Australian political affairs.

My personal remarks in the report relating to discontinuing the grandfathering arrangements that extend the franchise to up to 163,000 British subjects who may not be Australian citizens attracted significant comment in the media and to my electoral office. Most of the feedback was supportive of my proposal. Those who opposed discontinuing the grandfathering arrangements pointed to the broader notion of the franchise in some Western democracies, including that British subjects who were not citizens may be able to vote in UK national elections and that noncitizens enjoy the franchise in a number of countries, such as permanent residents in New Zealand.

I also received some comments from British subjects who were former veterans, having fought with distinction protecting Australia and our way of life. They were unhappy that, having made significant contributions and sacrifices for our country, they would be excluded from voting should they not take out Australian citizenship. While I understand that some of these views are strongly held, I consider that Australian citizenship should be one of the key elements underpinning the franchise in Australia. With the constitutional links now broken as a result of the Australia Act, High Court judgements that British subjects are ineligible to stand for parliament and the availability of dual citizenship, I do not believe that it is too much to ask that those deciding the future of our country should be Australian citizens.

I also believe that there should be an education program and that we should allow another 4½ years for this to take place so that it does not happen overnight. That will allow those people 30 years to take out Australian citizenship without losing their British citizenship. I think that is a fair compromise, because I think the alternative that someone who is not an Australian citizen can make the difference in an electorate and a difference as to who forms government is a far worse proposition for this country.

With the national rate of enrolment of eligible young people at the 2007 election at 85 per cent, some seven percentage points below the overall eligible population, it is clear that specific efforts need to be made to encourage young people to enrol to vote. A key recommendation of the committee in this area is to facilitate electronic interactions by electors with the AEC, thereby allowing young electors who are more likely to use such a medium to update their enrolment in a timely manner.

Another recommendation, aimed at increasing youth participation, is lowering the age for provisional enrolment, from 17 years to 16 years. With some states having a school-leaving age of 17 and many students completing their studies before this age, it makes sense to allow young people to enrol at this age, when they may also be undertaking civics eduction. This approach has also been adopted in the United Kingdom where 16-year-olds can register to vote, despite not being able to vote until they are aged 18. I understand and am appreciative that the committee was unanimous on this point.

A complementary recommendation, to reduce the age of provisional enrolment to 16 years, is for the establishment of a schools bounty scheme that would pay schools a small amount for every completed enrolment form returned by the school. The opposition members of the committee have dissented from this recommendation, arguing that no incentive should be required as it is a legal requirement to enrol once you turn aged 18. Further, the opposition members considered that the introduction of a financial inducement to encourage enrolment, however far removed from the individual, represents a corruption of our democratic process.

Compulsory enrolment does impose an obligation on individuals, but it also imposes an obligation on the government to facilitate access to our democracy. Should a schools bounty system be adopted, schools can utilise the nominal funding received to enhance civics education activities, such as student councils and participation in youth parliaments and other youth oriented representative bodies. Clearly, such a program would not corrupt our democratic process. Instead, it would provide a genuine opportunity for schools to encourage greater participation in civics education and engagement in the democratic process.

In the 2007 election, around 90,000 electors made errors when numbering their House of Representatives ballot paper, resulting in their vote being ruled informal and being excluded from the count. Research by the Australian Electoral Commission, following the 2007 election, found that differences in informality rates across electoral divisions reflected possible confusion on the part of voters, due to differences between federal and state and territory voting systems; a large number of candidates, making it more difficult to number all candidates correctly; and linguistic and cultural barriers experienced by some electors from non-English speaking backgrounds.

It is of concern to me that divisions in south-west Sydney continue to record the highest levels of informality. In the divisions of Blaxland and Watson, for example, almost one in 10 votes were ruled informal. In my electorate of Banks, 6.36 per cent of votes cast were ruled informal. This compares to an average informality rate in New South Wales of 4.9 per cent and a national average of 3.9 per cent.

While supporting the retention of full preferential voting for House of Representatives elections, the committee has proposed that a savings provision that was included in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which was used in all elections between 1984 and 1996, be re-instated. This would provide a safety net for electors who make a mistake in completing the numbering on a House of Representatives ballot paper by including ballot papers where there are non-consecutive numbering errors, up to the point at which the numbering errors began. According to the Australian Electoral Commission, up to 90,000 additional votes could have been included in the election count had such a savings provision for House of Representatives votes existed at the 2007 election.

It is noteworthy that a similar savings provision continues to apply for electors who make mistakes when completing a Senate ballot paper below the line. Under section 270(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, ballot papers on which at least 90 per cent of the preferences are expressed but some preferences are marked non-consecutively are admitted to the count. However, the preferences on the ballot paper will only be allocated and counted up until the consecutive number sequence is interrupted. So the provision is already there, but for the House of Representatives the provision was taken out. This is not in our report because at the time it was not drawn to my attention. But I am drawing it to the attention of the House now to show how it is absolute hypocrisy for the opposition to continue to oppose the reinstatement of the savings provision for the House of Representatives because it is currently there in similar form in the Senate under section 270(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Opposition members have argued that to support full preferential voting and a savings provision seeks to have one’s cake and eat it too, and they suggest that the adoption of optional preferential voting at the federal level should be continued. Whilst optional preferential voting is likely to see a decline in informality, a change to optional preferential voting would fundamentally change the nature of representation in the House of Representatives. It could lead to first-past-the-post and raise the prospect that candidates are elected without majority or popular support.

The committee does not see that the savings provision and full preferential voting are incompatible. The continued operation of the Senate savings provision for below-the-line votes with sequential numbering errors indicates a general acceptance of the need to include protection for voters who make genuine mistakes in numbering their ballot papers.

While the committee has also recommended reinstating penalty provisions to deter the advocacy of Langer-style voting, opposition members have claimed that it is naive to pretend that some of the issues associated with advocating Langer-style voting will not return. There may be implementation issues associated with reintroducing the savings provision. However, in the committee’s view, these concerns should not be a deterrent to giving up to 90,000 more electors who try to cast a valid vote the opportunity for their vote to be counted at an election.

I want to draw the attention of members of the House, the Senate and the public to table C.10 in our report—the table goes from page 385 to page 389. The table has a breakdown, electorate by electorate, on how some of these provisions impact, or could impact, in relation to voting for those House of Representatives seats. What we see is that changes to the provisional voting system from 2004 to 2007—this is on page 389—meant that 53,629 fewer voters were included in the count. Non-sequential numbering in 2004, which I just talked about, meant that 91,354 people had their votes knocked out. These are not small numbers. And in relation to British electors there are 162, 928 as of 30 September, 2008. I think the provision is that eight electorates have 2,500 and more; 62 electorates have 1,000 or more. That is the best table in the whole report. It shows the interaction and the impact of the particular provisions I have told you about.

See this speech in context