Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

My observation is reflecting on what has been said this morning. I will address the bill in detail, but the previous speaker, the member for Indi, and particularly the member for North Sydney, made some terrible, irrelevant and quite scurrilous allegations concerning the Treasurer which were not really directed at this bill. I come from Queensland, as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, and in that state you will see a long history on the conservative side of politics of the maladministration of electoral laws and the malapportionment of electoral boundaries—what became known as Joh Bjelke-Peterson’s gerrymander. There was the time when the National Party found itself in a majority position in government with about 18 per cent of the primary vote. We heard allegations during the days of the Fitzgerald inquiry of dead people voting in certain coalition held electorates in Brisbane.

No side of politics is virginal in this matter and no side of politics is unsullied. The Australian people expect better of us. To see crocodile tears from those opposite on this matter while making serious and unnecessary allegations against the probity and the integrity of the Treasurer is a disgrace. Today the member for Indi cast terrible aspersions upon the integrity of previous Labor administrations in Queensland and upon certain persons as well. This is not what the Australian public expects of the people who sit on these honoured benches. They expect us to carry out our jobs and to give the Australian Electoral Commission the necessary resources to make sure that electoral contests in this country are done with fairness, integrity and democratically.

It is simply wrong for those opposite to raise these types of allegations in a bill before this chamber. You can disagree with us, vote accordingly and say what you have to say, but do not go so far and do not make such allegations. The Australian public thinks that when we do these sorts of things in this chamber we are not doing our duty and we are failing them. That is what the member for Indi and particularly the member for North Sydney have done today. They should not have done what they did, and I believe the Australian public will judge them harshly for it.

I lived in the state of Queensland until I was 28 years of age before we saw a change of government, except for the National Party winning in their own right in 1983. Many times during that period we saw electoral contests where the boundaries were unfair and the electoral system was stacked against one side. We should never go back to those days in Queensland, regardless of which side of politics sits on the Treasury bench. Down here as well, I believe that these laws which we are seeking to enact today will assist the integrity and the operational aspects of the democratic process which we hold dear.

The Australian Electoral Commission is widely respected by both sides of the House and by the Australian public. When we see events that occur overseas in Third World countries, and even our great ally the United States, during contests like the one in Florida in the Bush-Gore years, we wonder how this could happen and we say, ‘Thank goodness it would not happen in Australia.’ The provisions in this bill will make our system better. I am pleased that those opposite will support some of them. I cannot understand why they will not support the others, except for base political motives.

Briefly, the changes deal with the recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters. The committee’s report on the 2007 federal election and other matters contained 53 recommendations, 45 of which have been unanimously supported. The recommendations go a long way towards examining what really happened in 2007 and how we can improve the electoral system in this country.

There has been a problem in this country with respect to our population and the gap with respect to electoral enrolment. In the history of this nation we have not always had a situation where everyone had a right to vote, such as 18-year-olds and women. There was a property franchise at one stage in the 19th century, and the states all in their own way passed legislation, obviously with support of the UK government, to progressively enfranchise the Australian population. Across our country today there is a strong commitment to democracy, and I think that the schedules in this legislation will improve it. But there has been a growing concern in the Australian public, and certainly the commentariat and political blogs online also refer to this, that we have a situation where about 1.4 million eligible voters are not on the electoral roll. Many of them are young people. At the many school graduations, prefect inductions and citizenship ceremonies that I go to, I am very pleased to see the Australian Electoral Commission present. I am very pleased with the attitude of school principals and school teachers with respect to citizenship encouragement and with political activism and participation also being encouraged in our schools. But sadly, some people do not take the necessary steps to enrol. Declining enrolments, particularly in areas where there have been transient populations, are a difficulty. If you also look at the populations in states like South Australia, where the population is fairly static, there is a much higher enrolment per population than in fast-growing areas like Queensland and Western Australia.

The AEC needs to be resourced better and to be given encouragement and assistance to increase and improve the enrolment situation across this country. We have got to do things and take steps to remove obstacles to enrolment, and I think the amendments in this bill go a long way towards that. Schedule 1 of the bill deals with the closing of the rolls for an election. The AEC has said on numerous occasions that about one in five Australians change their residence very electoral cycle. We are very socially mobile people. Unfortunately, there is enrolment slippage when that occurs. In areas that I have the honour and privilege of representing, there are large housing estates, and the electorate of Blair in south-east Queensland covers most of Ipswich and a lot of the West Moreton area. Where there are new housing estates, you look at the census collection districts and you wonder why there are not more people on the electoral roll. This will improve if we resource and give the AEC more assistance and if we allow people a greater period of time, a period of grace in which to enrol and to lengthen the period of time for the close of the rolls.

I think that what happens then is that the people who are representing electorates in this House, across the 150 constituencies, become better representatives and there is a more democratic outcome if people who live in an area can vote in an area. If you have moved, say, from Brisbane to Ipswich, as so many people have, or if you have moved from the southern states to the rural areas outside, there are a lot of people who actually do not take up enrolment straightaway and vote in places like New South Wales. Certainly Queensland has a large percentage of people who come from New South Wales every year.

I think that giving voters sufficient time to enrol to vote makes our system more democratic and I cannot see why we cannot resource the AEC appropriately, efficiently and effectively to process the increased number of people with a longer period of grace. As I see it, the AEC has not been complaining that it is not fully and appropriately funded to fulfil its obligations. Extending the period of enrolment means that more transient people can get on the roll, it improves the democratic process and, I think, it is a better outcome for all concerned. It also encourages people who have fallen off through electoral enrolment slippage to get back on, but it also means that people who have not enrolled in the first place can get on the roll. I think that is a good outcome and a democratic response by the Rudd Labor government.

The second issue that the opposition takes umbrage at is that of evidence of identity and provisional votes. We have heard some quite amazing statements from those opposite concerning provisional voting, as if somehow there has been a flurry of fraudulent and false attempts to vote at federal elections. The member for Isaacs outlined this in detail. He put it very well and I have no reason to repeat what he had to say, which is that it is simply not true.

There are a number of ways people vote, and we have seen an increase in other than ordinary votes in this country over the last few years. In the electorate of Blair in 2004 there were 483 provisional votes, 2,577 pre-poll votes, 5,330 absentee votes and 5,201 postal votes. In 2007 the informal vote in Blair—not too dissimilar to the average across the country—was 3.87 per cent. There were 3,053 pre-poll votes, 99 provisional votes, 5,114 postal votes and 4,248 absentee votes.

I want to focus on the provisional votes, because they are what the second schedule in the bill deals with. Provisional votes are the votes of people who go to vote in circumstances where, for example, they cannot be found on the roll and they have to prove their identity. The AEC estimates that over 27,000 provisional votes were excluded in the 2007 federal election due to the operation of existing evidence of identity provisions. The Howard government effectively, through the onerous provisions that the member for Isaacs outlined in his speech earlier, made it more difficult for people to cast their vote. Look at the electorate of Blair, for example. There were 483 provisional votes in 2004 and 99 in 2007. This is about the coalition being concerned at the high level of Labor voting by people engaged in provisional voting.

I am indebted to Peter Brent from Mumble Politics, a very well known blog that many in this House look at on a regular basis, for really nailing this in an article he wrote on 11 January 2008. This is very important for those people opposite who say they are pure and unsullied and that there were no base motives for changing the identity provisions to make it harder for people to vote on a provisional basis. They should just listen to these facts about the outcome. According to Mr Brent, the provisional vote in 2004 in this country was 81,129. It was down in 2007 to 21,909—a drop of 73 per cent. We are talking tens of thousands of people disenfranchised as a result of the changes the Howard government brought in.

Those people opposite think that people who are, say, challenged or poor, or are disadvantaged in some way, or are itinerant should be punished—well, the Howard government were all in favour of doing that. I will tell you why in 2004—remembering that the changes were brought in by John Howard before the 2007 election—this is how the voting went: absentee vote, two-party preferred Labor, 47.3 percent; pre-poll Labor, 45.3 per cent; postal Labor, 41.7 per cent; total declared vote, 45.3 per cent Labor. Interestingly enough, in 2004, prior to the Howard government’s so-called reforms, the two-party preferred provisional vote for Labor, in an election in which we got thrashed—as a candidate in Blair I got absolutely smashed—was 53.5 per cent. Making it more difficult for those people who vote provisionally has an electoral consequence for the coalition. That is why they did it.

Let’s look at the figures for 2007: absentee vote, two-party preferred Labor, 53.4 per cent; pre-poll Labor, 51.5 per cent; postal Labor, 46.8 per cent; total declared vote, 50.8 per cent Labor. Guess what the provisional vote was? With a reduction from 81,129 votes to 21,909 votes, the two-party preferred provisional vote for Labor was 60.9 per cent. The facts are very clear. The purpose of the Howard government provision to make it more difficult for people to vote provisionally is simply about disenfranchising potential voters who generally might vote Labor. That is what it is about, and that is why they did it. And that is why the Electoral Commission says so many people did not end up voting.

The other changes, I am very pleased to say, are supported by the coalition. I am happy that they are because they are really administrative efficiency measures. They are about ensuring that voters can update their enrolment electronically, which will modernise, in the 21st century, our electoral law. They bring to our electoral system a 21st-century response.

The other change solves a problem that was clear in the Bradfield by-election. At that by-election, the Christian Democratic Party should not have done what they did—putting up so many candidates, resulting in a high informal vote. If we can limit political parties to endorsing one candidate in each electorate, that will prevent a flood of candidates and will stop what was, I think, an intention to confuse the voters in that by-election.

I think the changes here fulfil what the Rudd government said it would do. They fulfil an election commitment to restore the seven-day close-of-rolls period and to repeal the provisional voting requirements. I think the changes we are making are genuine and bona fide. It is a good thing to be able to compare the signature of an elector on the envelope containing a provisional vote with the signature of the elector on previously lodged enrolment in order to check their bona fides. In the circumstances, I support the legislation. (Time expired)

See this speech in context