Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the member for Mackellar’s fine amendments to this proposed legislation from the government on the basis that we have heard in this debate a number of things that I do not think are valid in relation to prisoner voting. It is important that we take note of some of these arguments as we move forward from this juncture.

I do not think it is right that member for Werriwa comes in and says that people who are in prison are highly illiterate, they are uneducated, they are on the wrong side of society so, therefore, we ought to grant them the vote. I have no doubt that may be the case with many people who are in prison, but surely our responsibility as a society is to deal with those issues and assist those people with their problems, not say, ‘Well here is a great gift of enfranchisement of voting within our society.’ That is why I find this a necessary amendment to the legislation that is proposed to the House today, because the government is seriously proposing to enfranchise people who are serving custodial sentences of one year or longer for really no logical basis. There is no real argument that has been put forward here in this House today, other than the member for Werriwa’s bizarre interpretation that theoretically there could be one day, according to one academic that he read out, a large number of people who were imprisoned who all of a sudden would then need to have the right to vote against the legislators who had imprisoned them—presumably on some sort of false basis. If you are finding that a bizarre argument, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you I found it quite a bizarre academic argument as well.

The reality is, as the member for Mackellar has pointed out, there are people who have committed serious offences serving custodial sentences who will vote on who legislates in this society. I do not understand how that is a better outcome for us. I do not understand why the government wants to pursue this as such a matter of importance, considering that really this has no impact upon the electoral system, other than we must set those foundational principles as a society which says, ‘If you commit these acts, you ought not to have the right to vote.’

We have already heard that the Constitution states that you cannot serve as a member or a senator in this place with a custodial sentence of a year. It is a fine instrument from Federation, in the very foundation of the law of our land, that gives the setting and the message that they wanted to send—that is, prisoners serving a custodial sentence of one year or more could not serve here. If they cannot serve here then it would be odd to extend the vote to ensure that they can vote on who does serve here. It is an odd setting, and that is why I think it is a very worthy amendment.

The member for Mackellar also proposed another amendment, which is also very worthy. In this case, the government has failed to outline the guiding principles that it wants to see as a government in terms of the integrity of the electoral roll. Again, this is this tension between the judicial and legislative branches in our society. It is the role of the legislature to set policy. It is the role of the legislature to spell out its intentions in legislation. We ought not to be afraid of that. When we stand here looking at this fundamental guiding principle for our democracy—who gets the right to vote and when—I do not have a problem with standing on the right side of ensuring that people have an obligation to put themselves on the electoral roll. They have a legal command obligation with a sanction at law to do so—an imperative that forces them to do so. I find the legislation before the House, with these two particular sections, to be reactionary. The legislation is looking at the High Court’s judgements in a very narrow way and not looking at the full implications of where we believe we should head as a society. These two very fine amendments from the member for Mackellar ought to be thoroughly supported by the House.

See this speech in context