Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I don't think he would be offended by the fact I didn't use his title. I know he's the member for Lingiari. But, as I was saying, it's not just Lingiari but indeed the Northern Territory, because the outgoing retiring member has indeed fearlessly represented those interests in the Northern Territory. I respect him and commend him for it. But, on this occasion, I do not agree with the arguments he's put forward that this bill before the House that we are debating tonight is in any way, shape or form racist, in any way, shape or form biased or in any way, shape or form just designed to ensure that the CLP wins the seat of Lingiari, which he has represented so well for so long.

As I said before, he knows how hard I fought to make sure that there were two seats in the Northern Territory, not one, which was the Australian Electoral Commission's preferred option. He knows that. He knows that the AEC made that determination based on population, based on trends and based on where that organisation saw the future going with the Northern Territory population. I countered that, perhaps against the better judgement of others on this side of the House. But I was prepared to stake my integrity and my reputation on it and put forward my name and, indeed, the weight of the Nationals to ensure that we had two seats in the House of Representatives for the Northern Territory, because that is just, that is right and that is fair.

As a National Party member, I would never, ever support a bill which gave regional areas less representation—I just would not do that—because I know how hard it is for constituents of ours to get that representation, to be able to see their local member who may live in a far-off town, a far-off city, hundreds of kilometres from where the constituents live. It wouldn't matter whether it's the seat of Nicholls or the seat of Riverina—indeed, I'd even throw Cunningham in that, because I know that electorate is not that small either and it has regional constituents. And I can hear the member for Cunningham supporting what I've just said.

One vote, one value: that is a democratic principle, an inalienable right, so important in elections in our nation. This bill before us is an important piece of legislation—it truly is. Your identity is your access to life, to engaging in society, to being able to take part in normal, everyday living. Australia is regarded as one of the most respected, if not the most respected, democracies in the world, where all citizens have the right and have the obligation to vote in free and fair elections. That's why members of the Australian parliament are often asked to go to South-East Asian countries and elsewhere to ensure that their elections follow a due, proper, fair and equitable process.

Everyone, no matter who you are or what your rank is, has one vote of equal value, and that one vote should be treasured—almost akin to being considered sacred. Therefore it should be a given that something which is precious be treated with equal importance. Think about the types of everyday activities and the processes for which you need proof of identity to access or be granted access, particularly in this day and age, as we hopefully come out of the back of COVID-19. You can't get into premises these days without some sort of proof of identity and without showing your double vaccination. And if I could encourage people to do just that, then that would be desirable. Daily, we are being asked to provide proof of identity to pick up parcels from the post office, to enter a nightclub or, indeed, an RSL, to drive a car, to open a bank account or to pick up tickets for a concert or for a show. Why then would we not protect and ensure the integrity of our democracy by asking voters to show proof of identification when they go to cast their ballot? Why would we not do that?

The opposition and others have criticised the government because these amendments may disenfranchise voters who do not have adequate personal identification. This proposition, I would argue, is quite ludicrous. If they cared to look at the detail of the bill—and I appreciate that detail is not always a strong point of those opposite—they would see that the government has made provision for those without photo ID to be able to vote by supplying things such as a bankcard, a Medicare card, a birth certificate, a utility bill or—and this is important in the context of the arguments that are being put forward by those opposite, including the Opposition Leader—a statement from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Council or native title body. Additionally, if someone is not able to provide any of what I have just said, any of what I've just listed, any of what I have just described—that documentation—a companion, a partner or a friend can complete an attestation to verify the identity of a person, of a voter. Given the fact that we now have weeks of prepoll, if somebody arrives at a polling booth and they do not have what they need in order to cast their ballot, then the modern-day provisions ensure and enable them to be able to return. I appreciate that in some cases that is difficult because, for some people that requires extra effort, particularly in the Northern Territory, which has very remote polling booths. I understand that; I am a regional member. I know that Senator Sam McMahon drove something like 1,700 kilometres to ensure that Steve Edgington could win the seat of Barkly in the Northern Territory election, which he did by just a handful of votes. That showed her commitment, but that also highlighted and underlined how difficult it is for some voters, whilst appreciating that some of these electorates in the Northern Territory, in the territory elections or federal elections, are just massive.

Comments have been made by those who oppose this bill that there is not enough evidence of documented cases to justify bringing in these provisions. Doesn't the saying go that prevention is better than cure? Why shouldn't we do what we can to protect our greatest institution, which is, after all, our democracy? Turning to pass elections, it is easy to appreciate how it can happen. Under the current arrangements, what stops someone from voting in an electorate multiple times over the course of several days, during what I would describe as the excessively long prepoll period, when one doesn't have to identify themselves at a polling booth? There is an oft-used phrase—it is slightly humourous—vote early, vote often. Of course, I wouldn't suggest people do that. I can see the member for Watson nodding amusingly, and I wouldn't suggest he would do it either. I certainly am not suggesting that to the House, but it is a phrase and it had to have originated from somewhere. Sometimes there would be that ability.

I have to say that there are arguments that voter fraud is rife. Of course, they are always investigated by the AEC. They are always investigated, and anybody found to have engaged in voter fraud is quite rightly penalised, as they should be. Similarly, I have had constituents relay to me examples of when they went vote: they simply said their name and the polling official then suggested their address. You would argue that there should be more proof of identity. You would argue that, and this bill provides for just that.

A couple of fraudulent votes could be what it takes to put a sitting member out of his or her seat, or indeed the opposite: deny somebody the rightful chance to represent their electorate, their community, in this place. The responsibility of being able to represent in this place is very near and dear to my heart. I know that whilst I fortunately have thousands of votes to spare—or have had in past elections; who knows what will happen at the next one—it wasn't always the case in the Riverina. Indeed, there was an election very early in the 20th century where a member by the name of John Chanter, the original member for Riverina, had to go to a second ballot to oust a bloke by the name of Robert Blackwood—who was an English boxing champion, would you believe! He was quite clever with his fists, unlike the current member Riverina. It came down to a handful of votes, and there were some irregularities in the voting process. Mr Blackwood has the distinct dishonour, I suppose, of having been elected to this place and never having given a speech in this place—more's the pity; I think he would have made a fine contribution.

I understand that we as a nation are not the first to attempt to legislate in this area. Liberal democracies—even though that is the start of the sentence, I mean it with a small 'l'—with whom we share common values, including Canada, Belgium and Sweden have already introduced measures which require identification to be shown before being able to cast a ballot. So it's not as if we are testing the water, so to speak; we are, in a sense, catching up and ensuring that our electoral system is as secure and robust as it can and must be.

These are the reasons why this bill should be voted upon and indeed agreed upon in this House. It is going to ensure, as the bill is actually called, the integrity of the system. That word is important. Integrity has to be the hallmark of everything that we stand for in this place. Integrity is important. If there were ever a word in this place that is important, as members opposite know, it would be 'integrity'. I believe that this is going to provide additional integrity to our voting system, to our democracy, to the institution that we hold so near and dear, to the institution that we hold sacred.

See this speech in context