Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I will start by acknowledging the number of people in the public gallery joining us here today—witnesses to, in effect, the democratic process in operation right now. It is also worth pointing out that this debate on the billthat is being discussed is about enhancing people’s participation in the democratic process in this country.

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Provisional Voting) Bill 2011 looks at repealing the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity as a precondition to their votes being included in an election. As has been reflected upon earlier in the debate, there are four main reasons that a person wants to cast a provisional vote: firstly, their name cannot be found on a certified list; secondly, a mark already appears on the certified list, which indicates a person has voted; thirdly, the polling official doubts the person’s identity; and, finally, the voter is a silent elector.

The Electoral Act and the referendum act currently require a person casting a provisional vote to provide evidence of identity by the first Friday following polling day, and if the voter cannot provide evidence of identity by the deadline the vote does not progress to preliminary scrutiny and is not counted. This requirement—again, this has been commented upon in the course of this debate—was put in place by the previous government in 2006. Mind you, a lot of those opposite had been elected to office in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004, but they decided in 2006 that this was such a significant issue that they needed to deal with it. This resulted in a situation where provisional votes were dealt with in a way inconsistent with the treatment of other types of declaration votes—namely, absentee votes, postal votes and pre-poll votes.

At the 2010 election, over 28,000 votes were rejected because the voter did not provide evidence of identity by the deadline. It is worth noting that about 14 million people in the 2010 election cast a vote, of which 28,000 were rejected under the system put in place in 2006 by the former government. Again, it is important to note: the requirement for a provisional voter to provide evidence of identity leads to an inconsistency in the treatment of different types of declaration votes. I want to emphasise the point and support the comment made by the member for Banks, where he indicated that the changes being put forward by the government are supported by the Australian Electoral Commission. The AEC are the independent authority that we all support in their ability to oversee and operate the democratic process during elections. They do that not just during federal elections but in other elections where they are called upon by third parties—namely in union ballots, I make the point—to ensure the integrity of the process.

On that word ‘integrity’: my ears always prick up when the opposition use that code word. They talk vigorously about the need to defend the integrity of the roll. Rather, I think it reflects paranoia about the processes, probably championing conspiracy theorists and their fascination with this issue of votes being counted or being excluded. We will often hear cited Dr Amy McGrath, who from time to time has made it her life’s work to deal with the issue of why some votes have been counted and others excluded. Again, I think it is important that the AEC is scrupulous in its defence of process. Frankly, the use of and overreliance on this word ‘integrity’ in relation to the roll is code for those opposite advancing mechanisms to prevent people from casting a vote and finding ways to exclude them from the roll—particularly young people, as has been evidenced in the past in terms of the conditions for ratifying their enrolment ahead of an election—including, as we have seen before, differentiating between declaration votes and putting forward these onerous issues in relation to identity.

We need to be vigilant about hurdles that prevent participation and, as the member for Melbourne Ports observed in this place last night, our challenge is to find a way to get the 2.5 million people who did not cast a vote in the 2010 election to vote. Fourteen million people did; 2.5 million did not. That is a serious issue. Obviously, there are a whole host of reasons why people might not participate in the voting process, and we can canvass them. It may be, in some part, a reflection of disillusionment in the democratic process that makes people opt not to cast a vote. But there are other reasons as well, and I would certainly advance the idea that we have placed before them hurdles that make the process more difficult. From my perspective, removing the ID hurdles is an important measure.

In the electorate that I have the great honour of representing, Chifley, the proportion of people who have drivers licences is amongst the lowest in Western Sydney, and there is a reason for that: the state government has changed the way you get a drivers licence. Bear in mind that those opposite have said: ‘What’s the problem? If you just present a drivers licence then your identity has been verified.’ I would dispute that. To come back to the point, in New South Wales learners—unlike many of us in here who obtained our licences in years past—have to undertake 100 hours of driving to obtain a drivers licence. Again, some would say, ‘It’s not that big a deal.’ But, in fact, if there is no-one in the house who has a drivers licence and/or the learner is from a low-income family—and in the electorate I represent there are a great deal of people from low-income families—there is no-one at home who can participate with them in the driving requirements that are mandatory for getting a licence. Their only alternative is to pay for driving lessons to obtain their licence, and that in itself is a problem because they will not have the funds for it. So they are the hurdles to getting your drivers licence in New South Wales. While those opposite are advancing the idea, ‘Merely present your drivers licence; that’s okay,’ the fact is that drivers licence requirements such as those in New South Wales present a big problem for us.

I return to the fact that we need to find a mechanism to get the 2.5 million people who did not cast a vote in the last election to vote. Australia does have complex systems of voting. There are the optional preferential differences between federal and state elections. For example, in the New South Wales election, you have optional preferencing; in the federal election, you are required to fill every box with a number. As an aside, I would say that our system is way better than the US system, where there are enormous complexities and differences between the states in the way that people cast their votes, and that does disenfranchise people. At this point, I am also mindful of comments made by former Prime Minister Whitlam, where he recommended—and I do not want to cause a collective heart attack in the chamber; wait for it—that federal, state and local government elections all be held on exactly the same day—

See this speech in context