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

The opposition is supporting this amendment, as we did in the Senate, for the following reason. When we amended the legislation and put in place that those people wishing to cast a provisional vote should provide proof of identity we did so to protect the integrity of the roll. The minister makes the case that that meant we treated provisional votes as declaration votes different from other declaration votes, but of course the government by its own hand, by allowing pre-poll votes to be dealt with on the evening of the count, instead of being dealt with as they previously were, means that those declaration votes are already dealt with differently.

We were concerned, and so opposed the change to the legislation that would do away with proof of identity. Senator Xenophon's amendment will make more work for the Electoral Commission and I would have preferred it, and the opposition would have preferred it, if the responsibility had remained with the individual to ensure that they brought their proof of identity. I would point out that in the 2010 election somewhere between 75 and 80 per cent of people who wished to cast a provisional vote did so by providing that proof of identity. So that was an improvement over the 2007 position. Clearly, it was becoming accepted by those who wished to cast that sort of vote. By supporting the amendment as moved by Senator Xenophon it does mean that the concept of the need for a provisional voter to provide a proof of identity is an important one. Also I think it is important to recap as to why a person cast a provisional vote. The first point is that you were not found to be on the roll when you presented yourself. The second is that somebody had already voted in your name. The third is that the DRO simply did not like the look of you. The fourth is that you are on the confidential, secret roll because of security or other reasons that are acceptable. The way the government had drafted its amending bill meant that it was simply saying that the DRO had to compare the signature on the envelope with the existing signature. It is quite possible and indeed probable that in many instances there was no signature to compare it too. In the state election in New South Wales they had a similar provision where they had begun the process of automatic enrolment so there would be no signature because people were automatically put on the roll. So we believe that the concept of returning to the legislation the requirement for proof of identity is a step in the right direction. We would still at a future time in government revisit this because we believe it is the only way that you can adequately protect the integrity of the roll. The Electoral Commissioner, when he put in his submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, or JSCEM, made it quite clear that one of the key parts, if not the key part, of his task was to protect the integrity of the roll. We do see cases of multiple voting and we see that they are not followed up, and those are issues that we will be addressing in that committee. But for the purposes of this bill and this amendment, I say very firmly that returning to the legislation the concept that a provisional voter can be required to produce proof of identity is a step in the right direction. Therefore we support the amendment.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context