Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's advisory report on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 amends postal voting arrangements, increases nomination deposits for Senate and House of Representatives candidates, increases the nominators required for unendorsed candidates and Senate groups, changes the unsound mind exemption from enrolment and voting, and makes minor technical amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

The committee supports the changes in schedules 1 and 2 of the bill. However, it has some concerns about the schedule 3 changes to the unsound mind provisions and has recommended certain amendments. Schedule 3 proposes changes to the unsound mind provision in subsection 93(8) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That section exempts a person from enrolling and voting if they are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting. That is the proposed section. Thousands of people are using the provision each year. They may be facing temporary or ongoing mental health challenges that compromise their capacity to cast a vote. It is generally someone close to the affected person who will seek to have that person exempted under subsection 93(8). The Australian Electoral Commission cannot initiate a removal from the roll on these grounds.

The committee is sensitive to community concerns that the phrase 'unsound mind' is offensive and that the provision prevents some people from voting. Given Australia's system of compulsory enrolment and voting, it is useful to have a mechanism to address this to protect the integrity of elections and assist those who are unable to meet their enrolment and voting obligations.

Based on the evidence received, the committee is not satisfied that there is any pressing need to remove or substitute the phrase 'unsound mind'. It is an established phrase with meaning in the law. The committee has recommended retaining the phrase 'unsound mind' in subsection 93(8). To remove it risks broadening the exemption and potentially disenfranchising more electors.

The committee also supports the current requirement for a certificate from a medical practitioner. With other professions, such as psychiatrists and social workers, making these determinations it could unfairly disenfranchise people if these additional qualified people are less stringent in judging a person's capacity to understand the significance of enrolment and voting.

I now turn to schedules 1 and 2 of the bill, which relate to postal voting and nomination requirements. In referring the bill, the Selection Committee noted that the bill was ambiguous in relation to the specific changes being made to processing postal vote applications. In its review of the bill the committee found that a number of the changes relating to postal voting largely reflect existing AEC practices. These changes will simply ensure that the Electoral Act correctly outlines the processes that have evolved to help ensure the efficient processing of postal vote applications and distribution of postal vote packages.

Most PVAs are already processed centrally from PVPs distributed through the AEC's central print system—93 per cent for the 2010 federal election. At the next election there also will be the option to apply online. These online applications will be centrally processed. The Divisional Returning Officer is no longer the main conduit for postal voting activities. However, the Electoral Commissioner will continue to delegate his powers in relation to postal votes to Divisional Returning Officers and other AEC officers. This change will not affect the way in which individuals and political parties interact with their DROs on postal voting matters. As is the current practice, political parties will still be able to distribute PVAs with campaigning material, receive completed PVAs and forward them to the relevant DRO.

In the case of issuing PVPs to a person rather than specifically to an elector, the AEC indicated that it already issues PVPs to unmatched applicants who are not found on the electoral roll. The return ballot papers are then subject to further scrutiny and admitted to the count only if the person is verified to be an elector. This is in keeping with the approach taken with declaration voters.

While having a variety of candidates is a feature of Australia's democracy, large numbers of candidates means an expanded ballot paper and it increases the complexity of the voting task for electors. Setting appropriate nomination requirements is one way to help ensure that prospective candidates appreciate the seriousness of their participation in the electoral process, if they can demonstrate some community support for their candidacy. Increasing the nomination deposit from $1,000 to $2,000 for Senate candidates and from $500 to $1,000 for House of Representatives candidates is reasonable and appropriate. The increase from 50 to 100 nominators required for candidates not endorsed by a political party is reasonable. It is important that unendorsed candidates be able to demonstrate community support for their candidacy.

Similarly, if unendorsed candidates wish to be grouped on the Senate ballot paper it is appropriate that each member of a Senate group be able to demonstrate community support for the grouping. The bill will increase the nominators from 50 for the whole group to 100 per candidate. As the proposed new requirement is for unendorsed candidates to have 100 nominators, they should be able to draw on this support base to secure their Senate group box.

On behalf of the committee I thank the organisations and individuals who assisted the committee during the inquiry through submissions or by participating in the round table discussion in Canberra. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their work and contribution to this report and I thank the secretariat for their work on this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context