Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We certainly shall discuss that later, as the honourable member for Lyne says. It is an inclusive process, and it is about making sure that voters have every opportunity to exercise their constitutional right. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010 gives them that right. I rise to speak in strong support of the bill for the compelling reason that it enhances individuals’ ability to cast a vote. That is a basic but essential exercise, and also a responsibility in a democracy. A democracy is both product and process, and this is about the process of our democratic system. As lawmakers, as parliamentarians, we have an obligation to do anything that we can do to enhance it, to strengthen it—and that is what we are doing with this legislation.

When I studied law some years back I was surprised to find that our right to vote was in the Constitution. The Constitution is not something that we know very well in Australia, or indeed talk about. When you study law you at least get to study it for a year. It might not make you an expert, but you learn a little bit more than what is generally known in the community. We have a constitution that serves us relatively well, but it is not a constitution that is flush with individual liberties in a direct sense, in an expressive sense. We have this right to vote and this responsibility, something that we cherish in our community, and to find that it could be adulterated by law was a surprise to me. I thought it was something that was this right, this responsibility, and yet we have law and lawmakers who then adulterate it. That was how I saw it. I still see it within that framework. My personal view was, and remains, that if an individual Australian citizen turns up at the polling booth on election day to exercise that right, that civic responsibility, that person should be able to do that full stop and the law should not prevent them and put obstacles in their way; the law should facilitate their doing that. The changes in legislation I am speaking to tonight actually remove some barriers that were put in place in 2006, and they will assist people to exercise that right.

I know there are functional reasons—to prevent fraud and provide ease of administration, among others—as to why we have electoral laws. But functionality should not put barriers up to preclude a person from voting. We have to be mindful of that. I was surprised in 2006 when Mr Howard introduced the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I looked at it and I thought about it but I could not see any rationale for why we would have the issuing of the writs and then the roll would be closed off immediately and people would not have the seven days that they had prior to that change to get themselves on the roll. A lot of people do not go around thinking about the election and thinking about being on the roll. We do, because we are in the business of it. That is our job and that is what we do. A lot of people do not, and when the writs are issued that turns people’s minds to it. They realise they are not on the roll, and the AEC can do some work. The seven days lets people think about it and it gives them that bit of time to get on the roll. Yes, it is a responsibility, and it would be nice if everyone was on it beforehand, but they are not. That is not how we operate in human societies. To actually have the writs issued and then it was sudden death—there was no opportunity after, I think, eight o’clock that night—meant that people lost that opportunity. That did surprise me. I looked at it and I cannot say conclusively but I did not see any reason advanced that made sense.

The Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters provided some good information and recommendations. Many of the reports that have come from that committee have done their work well. They have provided good insights into the electoral process. The reports have provided good information and good recommendations, and this clearly shows the power of the parliamentary committee to work in the way it is intended to work. The report that I am referring to from the 2007 election came up with 53 recommendations. If I remember correctly, 45 were unanimous, and among those 53 were some good recommendations about the way we should approach the electoral law.

I turn to some specifics of the bill. A major and seminally important change is to section 155 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is a change that will cause the rolls to be closed for the purpose of an election seven days after the date of the writs. That means that we get to hear the announcement—and it is always the announcement we hear from the Prime Minister of the day—and then we hear that the writs have been issued and then people have seven days to get themselves registered. So there is a preparedness process. In a democratic system, that is an obligation that we have to make sure that people can do that. It gives effect also to recommendation 1 of the joint standing committee that I referred to.

There are a few other amendments. This legislation also gives effect to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. It brings the act into conformity with what I have just outlined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The way I read the bill—and I stand to be corrected—where we are amending the Electoral Act to allow better processes for voters et cetera in about six key areas, there is also a provision to amend the referendum act so that it is in conformity with the Electoral Act. I think it stands to reason that one has to do that. If we are exercising the referendum act, we have to have the same provisions in place, because we exercise a referendum act to cast our vote. The legislation picks up recommendation 45 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters giving consistency to the solid provisions.

Another key provision is the issue regarding the need to give proof of identity when casting provisional voting.

See this speech in context