Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Hansard source

I am making the case out by example to give effect, virtually, to the considerations of the High Court that said that the question of disenfranchising a person—disqualifying them from the right to vote—is a very, very serious issue. It has to be a serious matter that causes that disenfranchisement. I am making the case that three years for people whose disenfranchisement from voting would otherwise be seen to be seriously justified is too long, whereas the one-year period would accommodate the High Court’s decision, because the High Court makes it quite clear that under the Constitution members of parliament are given the right to determine when disenfranchisement may occur.

As of 30 June 2006, when the 2006 legislation was passed, there were 20,209 prisoners in Australia serving a sentence. That is distinct from 5,581 who were either on remand or unsentenced—we are only dealing with prisoners under sentence. Of the 20,209 prisoners, 35 per cent were serving two years or less. That is why I chose to give the two examples of people serving a two-year sentence and a 2½-year sentence, and I will give another example of a person serving a two-year sentence. A man who possessed, accessed and transmitted child pornography was among 19 men arrested in Australia by the AFP as part of a 12-month global child abuse investigation. The charges relate to more than 10,000 images and 250 videos. Many of the people on these types of sex charges do seem to get a sentence which is under three years.

I would like to contrast that with the situation for a member of parliament or somebody who is seeking to be elected to the parliament and section 44 of the Constitution. There are two relatively recent examples of how this applies. One was Keith Wright, who was the Labor member for Capricornia from 1983 to 1993. He was sentenced to eight years jail on 28 October 1993 for child sex offences. He was charged in August 1992 while still a member of parliament but he was not sentenced till after the election. He did attempt to stand for the 1993 election as an Independent, but he was, of course, not elected. Had he been elected he would have been unable to take his place in the parliament because of section 44 of the Constitution. Another example was Andrew Theophanous, the Labor member for Burke, who was charged, found guilty and sentenced to six years jail for bribery, conspiracy and defrauding the Commonwealth in relation to immigration matters. He too attempted to seek election as an Independent and was soundly defeated, but had he been elected he would not have been permitted to take his seat in this place because his sentence was for one year or more.

So I think there is a very sound argument for setting in place a truly sensible situation with regard to disallowing prisoners to vote and make it the same period as operates for members and senators being unable to be chosen or take their place in the parliament or continue to sit in the parliament if they are so sentenced.

In putting this proposition forward, I would point out that over the years there have been a variety of terms. It began in 1902 with one year—I think they got it right. In 1983 the Labor Party government put it up to five years. It went back to three years. When the High Court was giving its deliberations in Roach, it found very simply that three years was still constitutional. In other words, the parliament has the right to determine the matter.

See this speech in context