Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

Going back directly to the issue of integrity of the rolls—as encompassed in this bill and not as reflected in other states and past practices—it is common sense to minimise the potential for false enrolments. There is now in place an ongoing campaign to ensure the roll is updated and there are also active education campaigns to encourage people to enrol to vote as soon as they are eligible and to update their voting details when moving house. This should be an ongoing process—not one that people do just when election time comes and they have to vote. Allowing a massive influx of enrolment additions and alterations to the roll during the first week of an election campaign, severely affects the AEC’s ability to ensure the integrity of the roll. I will therefore be joining my colleagues in opposing the measure in schedule 1 of this bill.

11:29:18

For similar reasons, I also strongly oppose the measure in schedule 2 of the bill, which repeals the requirement for provisional voters to provide proof of ID. Once again, this was a strengthening provision put in place by the Howard government and I am bewildered why the Rudd Labor government would seek to wind back this integrity measure. You need to show proof of ID to join a video library, you need to show proof of ID to hire a bike to ride around Lake Burley Griffin just outside these doors and surely it is not too much to ask for proof of ID when casting a provisional vote. We are talking about a provisional vote which is cast when someone’s name cannot be found on the electoral roll or when they are already marked as having voted. Surely, it is not too much to ask in a case like this, where there is already some dispute as to eligibility to vote, that the person applying provides some basic identification. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister claimed in his second reading speech:

The AEC estimates that over 27,000 provisional votes were excluded at the 2007 federal election due to the operation of the existing evidence of identity provisions.

I say that gives cause to look more closely at the problems that have led to these people needing to declare a provisional vote. I am also somewhat surprised that in this day and age people are either unable or unwilling to provide proof of identity. I do not think the answer should be to relax integrity provisions and I therefore oppose this measure.

The other measures in this bill are worthy of support and will arguably improve the electoral system. The treatment of pre-poll votes as ordinary while not in any way diminishing the process of pre-polling—which is becoming increasingly more popular with every election—will mean that these votes can be counted on the day of the election and will allow for a more accurate assessment of voting results on polling night. The amendments relating to the processing of enrolments will not impact on the integrity of the count or the roll and I support them. The restriction on the number of candidates a party can endorse is also a commonsense provision that will arguably reduce confusion on polling day; which we have seen occur in past elections when there have been numerous candidates for certain seats.

In summary, it is unfortunate that the Labor government has coupled a few measures that may slightly improve the electoral system with two that clearly undermine and diminish the integrity of it, but it is no surprise when we see the record of so many Labor luminaries when it comes to the integrity of voting, the integrity of ballots and the integrity of the roll. For that reason, this bill must to be opposed strongly by anyone who is passionate about preserving our democratic system of government, preserving the voice of the people and preserving the integrity of an electoral system that underpins our wonderful democracy.

See this speech in context