David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. I wish to speak in support of a number of aspects of the bill but I begin by making the obvious observation: there is an old expression ‘horses for courses’ and I must say that I am just a little bit surprised that the Liberal Party would send in to bat on this important issue the member for Mitchell, who has hardly distinguished himself as a paragon of virtue and integrity when it comes to the democratic processes both externally but also internally within his party. I think his efforts to branch stack are held in wide acclaim by those who admire these matters. I do not consider myself to be one that does admire those activities. Certainly, there is a vast array of material on the public record that demonstrates that the member for Mitchell is coming to this debate with less than clean hands.

It is through the prism of his contribution that the contribution of those opposite should be viewed. Be very sceptical when the Liberal Party come forward with amendments to electoral laws without any valid basis for doing so. That is what happened back in 2006. In particular I refer to the close of rolls and the changes that were then put in place that moved the close of rolls date from being the evening of the date that the writ was issued from where it was previously, which was seven days after the issue of the writ. Be very sceptical when the Liberal Party come forward with proposals, as they did back then, because there was no valid argument for reducing the period available for people to update their enrolment or to put themselves on the roll so that they could exercise their democratic right and vote in that election.

We hear these arguments about how there is a lack of integrity and how there is rorting that is going on. We hear people quoting from books that are something in the nature of fiction in order to try and justify the very spurious argument that there is widespread rorting going on; therefore, we should deny people the opportunity to cast a valid vote because they may not have been on the roll as at the evening on which the writ was issued. The member for Mitchell articulates the argument that many others on his side have argued—that is, if we look at the figures at the last election and we look at the figures of the election before, there was not really a material difference in the number of people who were left off the roll. If that is the argument then I would ask the member for Mitchell and all of those members opposite: what is the harm in allowing that extra time so that people who are not on the roll may be able to regularise their enrolment details so that they can then exercise a vote? In a country that has such a rich tradition in valuing our democratic tradition, I do not see why we would be trying to put additional barriers in front of individuals that might be simply wishing to do what I think everyone in this place would expect all citizens to do, and that is to exercise their democratic duty and to vote in an election.

If there were evidence of rorting, not even widespread rorting, then there may be some argument to try and limit the ability of individuals to get on the roll. I would also raise the point that if someone were looking to rort enrolments on the electoral roll, they do not have to wait until an election is called in order to do that. Clearly, no-one in this place is going to condone that sort of activity but it seems to me a fairly specious argument to come forward and say, ‘We’re going to prematurely close the rolls so that all that rorting won’t occur.’ Everybody knows that 2010 is an election year. If people were looking to enrol people illegally and to engage in skulduggery, there is nothing to stop them from going out and doing it today. What is the magic about the evening of the issuing of writs as opposed to seven days later?

Let us not forget that we live in a political system where we actually do not know at the federal level when the next election is going to be down to the day. We do not know that and we will not know that until the Prime Minister goes off to seek the Governor-General’s concurrence with the date. That means individuals in our community wanting to maintain their enrolment or to enrol for the first time may be left in a situation where they are stranded having been caught short not knowing that the Prime Minister was about to go to Yarralumla and not being able to get their act together in the handful of days between that and when the writ is issued.

It seems to me that it pays, in a country that values its democratic traditions, to try and expand opportunities for people to participate in the democratic process. There is no greater exercise of one’s democratic rights than to cast a vote on election day. The argument that has not been put by those on the other side is why it is that closing the roll on the night of the issue of the writs is going to maintain any greater integrity than doing it seven days later. The other side of the coin, put very simply, is that clearly there will be people who will not be able to get their details updated within that short period who will benefit from the extra seven days. So what is the evil that we are seeking to eliminate here that we would go to the extent to deny individuals the opportunity to vote in an election? It seems to me that it is only as a result of the fact that those on the other side somehow believe that they get some political advantage out of this.

I know that there have been those on the other side on occasions who have suggested that younger voters are more likely to vote for the Labor Party than to vote for the coalition. I would suggest that that is not always the case, but I know it is a suggestion that has been made by people in the past. When you look at the percentage of people that missed out on updating their details on the roll, they are predominantly young people. If that is the argument, let those on the other side be fair dinkum enough to come forward to make that point.

I am surprised that the member for Mitchell and his associates on the other side have sought to make integrity on polling day and integrity in election campaigns the issue in this debate. I note that the particular measures that are contained within this bill are in large part recommendations coming out of the inquiry into the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There is an interesting chapter within the report that details some of the goings-on, some of the shenanigans, that occurred in the electorate of Lindsay, the seat that I represent, at the last election. I am disappointed that at this stage we have not been able to take sufficient action to try and correct what I think is a real shortcoming in the Commonwealth Electoral Act and that is the very small, the very meagre, penalties that are applicable to the sorts of acts that we saw carried out in the Lindsay electorate at the last election.

I know that that is a recommendation coming out of this report, and I hope that that is dealt with in the near future, but I think that these matters are just as relevant to this discussion as they will be to that discussion when it comes before this place. Those on the other side seek to come forward and suggest that somehow disenfranchising individuals by limiting their ability to get themselves on the roll is driven by this mass rorting, this lack of integrity in the way in which other parties conduct themselves during and in the lead-up to election campaigns when we have on display evidence of what I think were disgusting activities engaged in for the Liberal Party Lindsay campaign. One of the issues that concerns me is that an article published on 9 December 2007 in the Sunday Telegraph relayed some comments on the involvement of the Leader of the Opposition in the management of the Lindsay leaflet scandal under the headline ‘Abbot blamed for flyers fallout’:

According to senior Liberal sources, it was Mr Abbott who advised former Liberal MP for Lindsay Jackie Kelly to defend the leaflet as a Chaser-style stunt.

Her remarks sparked further outrage, and Mr Howard was forced to publicly repudiate her.

I guess we can see that the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, at least had the decency and good sense to distance himself from these activities. It seems as though that was not entirely the case for the Leader of the Opposition, as he now is.

See this speech in context