Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the member for Forrest, I believe that one of my very core responsibilities as a federal member of parliament is to protect the democratic rights of Australians, including those in my electorate, which is why I rise to speak on theElectoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. This legislation, which amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, contains five schedules. As we have heard, the coalition is supportive of schedules 3, 4 and 5. However, as has also been expressed, we do have very serious concerns with schedules 1 and 2—very serious problems, in fact.

Schedule 1 of this legislation provides amendments which will restore the closure of rolls period to seven days after the issue of the writ for an election. The previous government, in line with a longstanding policy, moved to protect the integrity of the roll and prevent fraudulent enrolments by reducing the time period between the calling of an election and the closure of the rolls. I would also like to note that this policy was reaffirmed in the coalition senators’ minority report in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters June 2009 Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto. The closure of the rolls seven days after the issue of a writ is a significant threat to the integrity of the electoral roll and can have a major influence on the result of elections, particularly in marginal seats—which may be why the Labor government is proposing the legislation. However, a return to the previous system of seven days will discourage citizens from making or maintaining their enrolment during the ordinary course of the year because they will have the opportunity to wait until the election is called. I know that it is important that Australian citizens take very seriously the currency of their enrolment. Schedule 1 will also increase the opportunity for selective fraudulent enrolment.

The other schedule that my fellow colleagues and I oppose is schedule 2, which repeals the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity before their votes are admitted to scrutiny. People impersonating other voters can be a serious issue which can and will have a direct impact on the end result of an election. I should think that, in this parliament, our focus on this issue should be about a fair process which the citizens of Australia can and should rely on as an accurate representation of their voting intention. This is at the very heart of a truly democratic system and something which, in Australia, we should jealously guard. The will of the people is paramount and the will of the people must prevail in a transparent process, not that of those seeking to manipulate the results in any way.

Requiring that people who claim a provisional vote at the election to produce evidence of their true identity and their enrolled address, either on polling day or in the week following polling day, is surely a fundamental part of the integrity and transparency of our Australian democratic process, and is critical in reducing that form of fraudulent activity. The coalition opposes any proposal to weaken the rules concerning proof of identity for provisional votes. Such a weakening would certainly not encourage Australian citizens to maintain their active and accurate enrolment status, something which is such a right and a privilege in Australia—you only have to travel to know that. We cannot afford to erode that right and that privilege. Accurate enrolment status is a fundamental underpinning of the democratic process.

People who live at a location for 21 days are, by law, required to enrol at that address and, if they do not, they are literally breaking the law. Effectively, the changes proposed by the Labor government mean that there will be no consequence for breaching the Electoral Act in this way. Furthermore, there are benefits for individuals who maintain correct enrolments, and these are basically reduced to a zero value—you are not rewarded because you have taken responsibility, the responsibility of your vote as an Australian citizen. On the other side, there is no disincentive for people who fail to enrol correctly and that undermines the AEC Continuous Roll Update program.

These two schedules, if passed, would open the electoral process to potential rorting and undermine the confidence of the Australian people in the transparency and integrity of our system—that very process that we, in this House in federal parliament, are charged with protecting. The right to our democracy is our absolute fundamental right and the right of every Australian. We do not want to see anything that erodes that through election results. One of my main concerns, and that of Australians who want to see an accurate reflection of their vote and who take very seriously their rights and responsibilities to maintain their accurate presence and location on the electoral roll, is the impact these schedules could have on marginal seats where the results can come down to a mere handful of votes. Again, we want to see the will of the people reflected in the outcome.

In these cases an increase in the number of fraudulent votes, due to the closing of the roll and/or identity evidence changes, could well mean an inaccurate result, and the will—the very will—and the right of the Australian people would not be reflected as a result. It would place into serious question the Australian concept of the integrity of our democratic process. That is the last thing anyone in this place should want. This is a very serious issue that would not only deprive the rightful winner of the seat but also deprive the voters in the electorate, who would not necessarily see their voting intention reflected in the result. As I said earlier, I believe that Australia’s fundamental democratic principles have been established to ensure that the very will of the Australian people is reflected in the results, irrespective of who is elected. That is a fundamental right of the Australian people. They elect who they want to govern the country, who will govern this country and who will be the various individual representatives in their respective electorates. It needs to be delivered with integrity, with transparency, without apprehension, without intimidation and without unrest in any way shape or form following a federal election. That is what we need to guard in this country. If there is a change of government in this country, there is a smooth transition—and it happens. We need to guard and protect this in a very direct way.

The coalition is supportive of schedules 3 to 5. Schedule 3 will enable a prepoll vote to be cast in an elector’s home division and counted as an ordinary vote wherever practicable. It proposes these voters as ordinary voters. Currently, there is a significant administrative burden on the AEC for processing prepoll votes cast within the elector’s own division. The net effect of this proposal is that there will not be any consequences, either for the integrity of the roll or for polling day practices. An additional benefit is that prepoll votes will be able to be counted on the night, leading to an earlier and more accurate result of the vote. This is particularly useful given the significant percentage of the total votes made up by prepoll levels. As mentioned earlier, this is useful to the outcomes in marginal electorates.

Schedule 4 is an administrative amendment that will allow the AEC to transfer workload relating to the processing of enrolments between different divisional returning officers. This amendment will see stronger efficiencies by the divisional returning officers because they will be able to distribute the work to other officers during particularly high levels of demand or during staff sickness or leave requirement periods. It will also allow people who are already on the roll to update their details electronically. Schedule 5 aims to restrict the number of candidates that can be endorsed by a registered political party in each division. The amendments in this legislation will mean that a registered officer will only be able to nominate one candidate as an endorsed candidate for a single division in any state or territory. We can certainly see the benefits of that in this schedule.

In conclusion, as highlighted earlier, the coalition recognises the importance of protecting the integrity of the electoral system and is strongly opposed to any measures that could increase the rorting of any of these processes. The member for Goldstein highlighted the inaccuracies in specific Commonwealth data that could be replicated through the electoral roll. Given this, the coalition is supportive of schedules 3, 4 and 5. However, it opposes schedules 1 and 2 on all points, as they will not only reduce the integrity of the electoral roll but also could impact on the final results of elections and not reflect the will of the Australian people in those electorates.

See this speech in context