Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I am coming back to the structural. It is important because it is part of the package—it is financial and structural. This is leading in to the structural changes.

Again, the general principle I would hope we stand by is to be as inclusive at the ballot box as possible without losing the integrity of the rolls. I accept the position of the coalition, post-2006, about the importance of the integrity of the rolls, but I do not see this change, going back to the pre-2006 rules, as directly challenging that integrity. I would hope we have an inclusive process. I think 600,000 people turned up to cast a provisional vote at the 2007 general election and were unable to. That is unfortunate. I would hope that we would have some back processes, whether based on signatures or any other means or improvements in technology, which would allow provisional voting to be a valid way to vote. If that is the fundamental change that we are seeing, then I do not see that as a change which will cause the world to collapse if it goes through.

I understand that there are some changes to pre-poll voting as well. There are changes to provisions requiring that pre-polling places must now include compartments for voting—these are to fall within the same definition as compartments used for polling on election day—and must have a ballot box for votes. This is acceptable. Voters can vote at pre-polling places within a division or at other places declared to be used for pre-polling as long as the list of voters is delivered to that place. Essentially, the four or five points on pre-polling are, as I said, eminently sensible on the surface. Unless I hear otherwise from others, it all looks fair to me.

There are amendments relating to processing of enrolments. I think there are some interesting changes worthy of note, including allowing 17-year-olds to register in specified circumstances. There have been ongoing debates throughout my years in both state and federal politics on the rights and wrongs of various voting ages. I would be interested to see the detail of those specified circumstances in which 17-year-olds can now register.

The issue arising out of the Bradfield by-election is also worthy of note. That election saw an extraordinary effort by one smaller, but still very active, political party in standing nine candidates out of 22. Whilst the Christian Democratic Party certainly did not achieve an outstanding result as a consequence of that, I do also accept as sensible the change to restrict, at every election or by-election, each of the registered parties to standing one candidate and one candidate only. I think that is a fair and sensible change.

I understand there is very minimal impact financially. The cost estimate I have is for just over a million dollars, with savings over forward estimates of over $5 million. Most of those savings arise from more efficient pre-polling at the next couple of elections. I do not have a problem with this bill and I await the associated legislation with a great deal of interest. Whilst it is still in negotiation, I would encourage all members to reflect, and to reflect deeply, on whether this is a process about short-termism or long-termism. Is this process a scramble for power—a couple of major parties fighting over the title of ‘executive’—or are we, through these processes of electoral reform, building a better and more sustainable long-term parliamentary democracy in this country? I would ask for those negotiating on the next piece to keep a particular focus on that.

Whilst being fair through this legislation is uncomfortable and difficult, and I do not think anyone in this debate speaks with clean hands on any of this, I would hope quite sincerely that the focus is on those broader principles that I started with. Quite often they might sound boring and philosophical, but they are critical if we are building a better structure of detailed processes for provisional voting or pre-polling. Those broad principles do matter. In this case, without losing integrity, I accept that it is an inclusive process. When we get into the financials, I will have plenty more to say about some broad principles as well. I hope they are considered through the process of drafting that bill.

See this speech in context