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

I want to revert for a moment to the answers that the minister gave me previously relating to automatic enrolment. I confirm the opposition's opposition as it was expressed in the dissenting report. It was a very political report. It was a bit down party lines, with Labor and Greens on one side and opposition members on the other. I just wanted to mention specifically the minister's reference to the AEC using ATO information.

I think it is relevant to go back and look at various reports. For instance, a 1999 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration found that tax file numbers that had been issued were 3.2 million more than there were people in Australia. I do not think those records are very good for utilising to put people on the roll. It found that there were 185,000 potential duplicate tax records of individuals and it found that 62 per cent of deceased clients were not recorded as deceased in a sample match.

A further report on the integrity of Medicare enrolment data found that up to half a million active Medicare enrolment records were probably for people who were deceased. In other words, rolls that are created for another purpose are not a valid or safe source of information for the electoral roll. The fact that it is so vital that the integrity of the roll is maintained is highlighted by the judgment in the case of Perkins v Cusack, where the judge refused to go behind the roll, saying that the roll is a total acceptance that those people who are on the roll are entitled to vote. Quite clearly, by utilising lists from sources other than people who are honouring their obligation under the Electoral Act, it is the obligation of every citizen, once they turn 18 or become a citizen, to enrol to vote. That is compulsory, it is strict liability and there is a fine, yet the Electoral Commission have not imposed or attempted to have imposed one fine—not one. They do not pursue people for multiple voting. They send out letters to people saying, 'It appears there was multiple voting in your name. Did you do it?' The people say, 'No,' and that is the end of it. In other words, there is not too much scrutiny going on with the Electoral Commission, so I am doubly concerned about the carte blanche that the commission has been given to choose any list it likes. I know you said in your answer that there is an undertaking that they will stick only to these three, but there is nothing in the law, anywhere, to prevent any list being chosen at any time. I know you said that you are trying to harmonise the biggest states, Victoria and New South Wales. The information to me is that the commission has started in the electorate of Petrie. I would like you to answer that question.

Also, harmonising state rolls with the federal roll is a major target that has been formed. I do not think it should be; I think the integrity of the roll must always take precedence. Secondly, it is not a very sensible argument because there is no harmonisation between the states and the Commonwealth as to the method of voting. The reason we get such a high percentage of informal votes is that in Queensland and New South Wales we have first-past-the-post voting or, rather, optional preferential voting, which is the closest thing we have to that, whereas in other states it is full preferential voting. That does not follow either.

The last point I would like you to respond to is on the legislation which allows the Auditor-General to automatically audit private contractors with the Commonwealth and yet will protect the NBN from the Auditor-General's automatic right to audit government business enterprises. I ask: was it simply done because the original legislation was to give the Auditor-General that power? It was taken away at the last moment. Mr Oakeshott, the person who introduced it, said he was given no good reason but, as is his wont, he simply agreed with the government at the time. Was it done deliberately to protect the NBN or is there some other reason?

See this speech in context