Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We are not supporting Schedules 1 and 2, Member for Melbourne Ports. You know we will vote against that. It is very interesting that the member for Melbourne Ports said that the previous amendments to the Electoral Act were made by the Howard government in the interests of enhancing the coalition’s position and that he then went on to tell the parliament that those enhancements took away the votes of the Labor Party—in other words, this bill is before the parliament to restore the votes of the Labor Party. The member for Melbourne Ports admitted to the parliament that the reason this bill is before the parliament is to restore the votes of the Labor Party. That is not a reason to put a bill to the parliament of Australia. We are about good public policy and, in this instance, that should be about the integrity of the electoral roll. That is what it is about. The integrity of the roll should be paramount in our democratic system. There is a small amount of dual voting that goes on in Australia and we should try to make sure, wherever we can, that we minimise that. Schedules 1 and 2 militate against that principal and that is wrong. I am sad to see the Labor Party using their numbers to put something through the House that affects the integrity of the roll.

On the issue of restoring the close of rolls to a period of seven days after the issue of the write of election, I remind the Labor Party that (1) it is still the law of this land that you should enrol on the electoral roll and (2) nobody is stopping you from enrolling on the roll. By putting this provision in to give you seven days to enrol after the writs are issued, what you are really saying to Australians is, ‘Well, if you don’t enrol, you have actually then got seven days to enrol.’ You are not encouraging people to get on the roll when they should get on the roll, which is before an election. No-one is stopping them getting on the roll. There is no attack on their democratic rights. They can get on the roll as soon as they are 18—in fact, they can get on the roll provisionally before they are 18, but they can vote when they are 18. They do not have to wait until an election is called. So, by leaving the current act the way it is, nobody’s democratic rights are impinged upon. Why does the Labor Party want to change it? The answer is: because it benefits them.

On repealing the provision for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity before their votes are admitted, how could the Labor Party logically argue that that should be the principle? Surely you have to identify yourself. We have to identify ourselves in everything else that we do. I am reminded of a funny incident that happened to me last week. I had to get a new ordinary passport, so I went to the post office and took along my official passport and they said, ‘That is not sufficient identification.’ I had to produce my Medicare card, would you believe? It is just extraordinary. Anyway, that is beside the point. I think that it is absolutely mandatory to preserve the integrity of the roll by making people identify themselves. After all, anyone could go up and say, ‘I’m so and so and I want to vote,’ and they will be given a vote under this proposed legislation.

I would also like to draw to the attention of the House the situation in Indigenous Australia. Pro rata, probably more fraudulent voting goes on in Indigenous Australia than in the rest of the country. That is sad. It goes on because it can, and that is why measures that are in this bill should not be in the bill to help get the Indigenous integrity on the electoral roll sorted out. I have seen many instances of this occurring in Indigenous communities. There are associated issues where people actually go and vote for others because they can. I know that the Australian Electoral Commission is concerned about this and I know that they would like to see that addressed.

I support the coalition’s intention to vote against the first two schedules of this bill. The schedules are wrong because they will further destroy the integrity of the roll, and I would like to see the recommendation on those two schedules overturned. I am happy to support the remaining three schedules; they are sensible and practical measures. I thank the House.

See this speech in context