Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] I'm not sure that I know the member for Scullin well enough to know what qualities of his I admire, but I have to say that he's got a vivid imagination if that contribution on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 is anything to go by. So I can confidently say that I admire the member for Scullin's imagination, if nothing else. I'm sure if I had more time on a personal basis with the member for Scullin there would be other things that I admire as well. But, quite frankly, given that contribution, it's his imagination that I am in awe of.

In sitting on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and considering this matter, I have to say that after the report was finalised and the matter came to this place, I've been surprised by the level of objection raised by those opposite. It's come as a bit of a surprise to me, quite frankly—and I might want to try and unpick why that might be. It's got me thinking—exercising my own imagination—as to why those opposite are so voraciously opposed. But I might make a contribution about that a little later.

I want to make clear that this is a bill about voter integrity and, whilst it's true that the Electoral Commissioner has said that this issue is small, small issues can create big problems. It's estimated that something in the order of 2,000 or so multiple votes took place at the last federal election. Indeed, one individual voted 13 times. Those opposite say, 'Oh, well, nobody was prosecuted in relation to those matters,' and true that is. But that has much more to do with how difficult it would be to bring a successful prosecution in these matters than the fact that there were no occasions of multiple voting. Equally, many of us in this place have been here long enough to remember the election for the seat of Herbert in 2016. That was an election that was so finely balanced, and ultimately led to a chamber that was equally finely balanced. A small handful of multiple votes in that particular division could have changed the course of that election.

Quite frankly, I personally find a number of the contributions that have been made by those opposite deeply offensive. The suggestion that this is being brought to this place so as to, in particular, disenfranchise First Australians from exercising their right to vote is not only offensive to me; I'd suggest respectfully to the House it's offensive to First Nations people. This week we had the member for Ballarat telling the people of Australia that she was gobsmacked, in effect, that the chair of Infrastructure Australia might live in regional Australia, might've been a mayor in regional Australia, and wasn't ipso facto adequately qualified to be in that role. Now we have members of the Labor Party implying that First Australians don't have the wherewithal or documentation to effectively prove their identification on polling day. I think a lot more of Australia's First Nations people than those opposite.

Before I go into much more detail, let's be clear about what this bill does. It effectively says that if you want to vote in person on polling day then you're required to provide identification. That can be in the form of a current photographic ID: a drivers licence, a passport or a proof-of-age card. It could also be a government issued identification card or documentation—for example, a Medicare card, a birth certificate or a citizenship certificate. It could be recent proof of name, such as utilities account statements, tax notices, bank accounts, a credit or debit card, or a document issued by an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land council or native title body. If it's good enough to require ID to hire a car, take out a loan from your local library, buy alcohol or buy cigarettes, then I for one think it's quite acceptable for ID to be shown when it comes to exercising that most fundamental and most important right to vote on election day.

Those opposite want to contend, in an attempt to scare people about what this bill does, that people will be disenfranchised from voting. It's complete rubbish because, were you to attend a polling place and not have any of those documents that I just referred to, you would be invited to make a declaration vote. No-one, and I mean no-one, will be disenfranchised by this provision. What it will do is stop people from exercising that right to vote multiple times. Which brings me to why those others are so energised or exercised on this. You might be quite critical of me for saying this, but, to be honest, I think it's evidence that Trump derangement syndrome has entered this place. Quite frankly, those opposite, in almost every interview I've heard, every contribution that has been made, have quickly run to making a reference to this being a Trumpism attempt by those nasty coalition members to disenfranchise people from voting, to suppress the vote.

The truth is that this provision is much more European than it is from the United States. I'm sure those opposite know, for example, that this kind of ID requirement is in France, Sweden and Belgium. It's also a requirement in Canada. For those opposite to simply try pretend that this is just the coalition in lock step with the Republicans in America is quite frankly just another attempt to run the age-old lines you run at about this time in the lead-up to an election. If it's not scaring pensioners about the rubbish you're running around with in relation to the cashless debit card; if it's not ringing pensioners in the middle of the night to scare them about other things; and if it's not 'Mediscare', it's now this. It's now: 'You won't get to vote on election day because of these Trump-esque coalition members in the LNP.'

The member for Scullin made a virtue of the fact that, when the 2015 Queensland state election took place, an election at which voter ID was required, it had the lowest turnout in 12 years. But what the member for Scullin didn't then go on to say, but I will, is that the turnout at the 2015 Queensland state election that involved voter identification was in fact higher than the turnout for the 2017 and 2020 Queensland state elections when the identification laws were repealed. It's worth repeating—voter ID was required in the Queensland state election in 2015, it was repealed subsequently such that the 2017 and 2020 elections did not require voter ID and in fact the turnout without the need for voter ID declined. It went down. So, whilst the member for Scullin is quite right to come in this place and accurately say that the 2015 turnout was the lowest it had been in 12 years, the reality is that the turnout was higher in 2015 with voter ID laws than it was when those laws were repealed in 2017 and 2020. So the argument that voter ID in the Queensland context suppressed the vote, quite frankly, is rubbish. But it suits the argument of those opposite, of course, to point to that.

The reality here is that this legislation doesn't seek to disenfranchise voters. It seeks to improve voter integrity and ensure that, the day after election day, we are not in arguments about what the outcome may have been. We can have trust and confidence, and the Australian people can have trust and confidence, in that outcome. As we have seen recently in the American setting, that is so, so important. I want to wake up on election day in 2022 hopefully celebrating a win, but, if we are not, I don't want to be thinking to myself, 'I have concerns about the integrity of that election,' and, deep down, I think those opposite don't want to be having those concerns either.

This is not a proposal that seeks to suppress the votes of those that those opposite think we aren't going to successfully attract. It's certainly not a bill that's intended to operate in some sort of racist matrix, like those opposite are attempting to suggest. As I've said, I find that assertion offensive. I am sure many others do. But the people most offended by that assertion should be Australia's First Nations peoples. It effectively says that those opposite don't have the respect that they need to have for Australia's First Nations peoples. The reality is that their argument consistently in this place is that this is racist and an attempt to suppress the votes of First Nations people. The member for Scullin said exactly that. He mentioned Lingiari and he said it was an attempt by the coalition to win that seat. I didn't say that. He said that. The member for Scullin said that. The reality is that that is deeply offensive to me, and I'm sure it's deeply offensive to many First Nations Australians.

The reality is that this is about integrity. I began this contribution by saying that I can't understand why those opposite are so exercised about this. I said something about the member for Scullin's imagination. I also said that their attitude in relation to this bill has me exercising my imagination. Every time my imagination runs off in this direction, I pull myself up, because, quite frankly, I think too much of those opposite to think this. But it has me thinking: what are you trying to cover up?

Ah, the member for Eden-Monaro has just belled the cat. The motivation here from those opposite is that they think that this is in fact an attempt by us to suppress the votes of Australians. It's complete rubbish. Those opposite need to accept that, by their arguments daily in the media and in this place, they're effectively saying that, as a class, the First Australians don't have the wherewithal to come to polling booths with the documentation, nor can they make a declaration vote. You've got to own the arguments you make. Those are the arguments the member for Scullin made. Own them, because they are deeply offensive.

See this speech in context