Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the three minutes in which I spoke last night I referred in very brief detail to the amendment proposed by the opposition which related to the issues covered in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 and which they thought should be withdrawn. The first issue is:

(1)

reduce the period of time Australians have to enrol to vote and update their details on the electoral roll;

When we look at the legislation which is subject to amendment and conditions that, to the best of my knowledge, have applied over the 25 years I have been in this place, we come to section 101 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, ‘Compulsory enrolment and transfer’. It has always been the case that we have had compulsory voting and compulsory enrolment. We have a compulsion that says that people will give advice to the Electoral Commission about any change to their residential address, particularly as it relates to change of electorate. Part VIII, subsection 101(6) makes this very clear. It says:

A person who fails to comply with subsection (1), (4) or (5) is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 1 penalty unit.

We have the constantly recurring argument about closing people’s right to enrol or giving details of changed residential address that, somehow or other, they all choose to do so, but they have an obligation under a longstanding section of the existing Electoral Act. Subsection 101(4) says:

Subject to subsection (5A), every person who is entitled to have his or her name placed on the Roll for any Subdivision whether by way of enrolment or transfer of enrolment, and whose name is not on the Roll upon the expiration of 21 days from the date upon which the person became so entitled, or at any subsequent date while the person continues to be so entitled, shall be guilty of an offence unless he or she proves that the non-enrolment is not in consequence of his or her failure to send or deliver to a Divisional Returning Officer or an Australian Electoral Officer, a claim, duly filled in and signed in accordance with the directions printed thereon.

Note:      A defendant bears a legal burden in relation to the defence in subsection (4) (see section 13.4 of the Criminal Code).

The argument that everybody is entitled to rush up and top-load the Electoral Commission after the calling of the writs is an argument that people should be encouraged to break the law. The only people who have a reasonable argument for enrolling after the writs have been issued—in amendments the government is also proposing to clarify this issue—are those who were unable to enrol on a previous occasion, and they are in a considerable minority. In fact, under existing legislation, if your circumstances are such that you turn 18 after the calling of the writs, you had the opportunity when you were 17 years old to lodge an advance application. What a hoo-ha that 80,000 young people will be denied because they have been delinquent in meeting their obligations under the act as it is written. That is silly and wrong, and it virtually encourages people to break the law as it exists.

Then we get to introduce new proof of identity requirements. As I pointed out briefly last night, the new legislation does virtually no more than introduce requirements—requirements which young people have become quite understanding of and quite used to meeting—to produce some form of evidence, particularly of their age, as they do to get into the local nightclub, or, if questioned, produce such documentation that proves their age, in particular. So we have it at the local pub, but it is considered unreasonable when someone seeks to be enrolled or to otherwise have to prove their identity in another category, which I will refer to in a moment.

I am reminded of questions without notice directed to the then Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison, on 27 November 2001. It is pretty interesting stuff because it refers to the Queensland scandal. The ALP was enrolling people falsely to improve its opportunities to branch-stack in Queensland. If anybody needs protection from claims of false identity, it appears that the Labor Party should be the first cab off the rank. The Labor Party had this massive scandal in Queensland. That scandal resulted in the resignation of Jim Elder, who was Deputy Premier of Queensland, because he became mixed up in this identity scam. The Shepherdson inquiry had to extend its terms of reference to enable it to conduct an investigation into alleged official misconduct ‘which constituted a criminal offence or offences by Peter James Elder in respect of matters affecting the electoral roll,’ the CJC said.

Then we find there are other identities: a Mr Mike Kaiser, former ALP secretary, and Mr Gary Fenlon. It was stated the ‘Mr Powell has accused Mr Fenlon of providing addresses of safe houses where voters could be illegally enrolled.’ This was because the ALP—I think quite properly—wanted to know that people who were enrolled in branches actually lived within the area of the branch of which they were entitled to be a member. I would think a few people who have been under a bit of pressure in other parts of Australia recently where allegations of branch stacking have arisen would be comforted to know that this new legislation will prevent that form of branch stacking in the ALP.

However, it goes a bit further when it comes to identification and to another problem associated, presumably, with provisional voting—vote early and vote often. Another answer was given by the then Special Minister of State on 6 November 2000 in the Courier-Mail, wherein the Special Minister of State pointed out that a Labor official, ‘a member of the 1987 federal election campaign team, has revealed that he and other ALP supporters cast numerous votes for Mr Lavarch and other ALP candidates in state and federal elections by illegally impersonating people’. This is evidence. In the Courier-Mail’s expose, he gives an example of how Labor went about rorting the electoral process. The article states:

On polling day in Fisher, he recalls, there were many female names on the rort list, but a lack of women in on the scam. “But we got one young girl of 16 from Young Labor who thought it was quite exciting. She voted 14 times.”

These answers were given in the parliament without being rejected, without it being said that they were not true. The scam works like this: a trusted inner circle of campaign workers compiles lists of voters who have left an electorate but are still listed as enrolled there. Labor supporters then cast votes in those names on polling day. In some cases, they cast ballots more than a dozen times.

One has to look at Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who have a concern about casting a vote and who simply do not. The opportunity exists for someone to go along and join and to express support for their particular religious beliefs. They can get to know the lot and then turn up on polling day and vote for them. There are some very interesting statistics, which I remember but cannot quote in detail, about the year when the member for Brand was under severe pressure—I think it was in 1996. In fact, it was recorded and admitted by the Electoral Commissioner that a massive increase in provisional votes were cast under that system, which was virtually one where a person could turn up and say, ‘I live in Smith Street and I’m not on the roll.’ They would be given a provisional vote and be counted without further checking, as long as they had signed a stat dec.

In that 1996 election, when the polling was telling Labor that one of their senior people was at risk of being defeated in the electorate of Brand, there was almost a trebling of provisional votes. Although there had been a trend right across the polling booths in favour of the Liberal candidate, who was leading on the count, 80 per cent of the provisional votes, when counted, went to Mr Beazley, the member for Brand. That had not been the trend. You would think at least that, if these people lived in various areas and sought a provisional vote, their voting intentions would be consistent with those of other people. It is a statistical fact that one would anticipate. It is an interesting point that provisional votes tend not to run in that direction. But to see the Liberal candidate leading by 51 per cent on the primaries and suddenly, on the emptying out of the provisional box, it goes 80-20 against her, you have to start to ask a few questions.

This legislation sets out to make that significantly more difficult and, in fact, to ensure that the votes are not counted unless the person claiming that provisional vote produces evidence, firstly, of where they live and, secondly, that they are who they say they are. It also requires that those votes will be set aside if those circumstances are not met on the spot, and they will not be counted until there is adequate evidence to support that person’s claim for a vote.

Why do these things have to be attacked? Why would the opposition wish to have these matters withdrawn? In the time remaining to me, let me also repeat what I said about the increase in the disclosure threshold to $10,000. There are two major political parties. One group is supported openly by the trade union movement with tens of millions of dollars. That is seen as being transparent. Of course, the results of recent pre-selections show that the influence of that money is such that 50 per cent of the pre-selection votes cast for individuals are virtually held by the trade union movement.

That influence is demonstrated here every day. It may be that the people who comply with those instructions believe they are doing the right thing. They have come from those institutions and they come to this place to promote those particular commercial interests—and they are commercial interests. All those people out there in the movement are making a living out of their line of philosophy, if you like. They are very upset at the moment that their services may be seen as being less necessary to many workers. Maybe they will be more necessary; if all the predictions they are making about where workers will end up come true, there will be a pretty interesting situation in that everyone will want to join.

The reality is that we on this side rely significantly on personal donations in order to put our case to the people as to how we would better run the country. The problem has been that small business people say, ‘Hey, if I have a declaration that I’ve donated to you, an instruction goes out’—and I have seen this happen in a town called Collie that I once represented—‘and people are told not to shop at our shop by trade union people.’ Alternatively, a strike might be called in their business. You cannot do it. People are entitled to make a donation, and you do not buy support from the Liberals for $10,000 or $1,000. (Time expired)

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, we have had this debate here in the past, as you well know. The last time I spoke on this legislation in its previous iteration was in May 2004. At that time I described the proposals as a thinly veiled attempt by the government to disenfranchise people who they believe might not otherwise support them. I remain steadfastly of that view. The matter of funding is important, and if I have time I will address it. But the key issue in this debate is participation. The spirit of the Commonwealth Electoral Act is the enfranchisement of the citizens of Australia to exercise their democratic rights. The proposed changes are a complete repudiation of this spirit. In fact, they constitute, in my view, a denial of fundamental rights.

The government tell us they are presenting the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 to ensure the integrity of the electoral roll and the electoral process. They need to be reminded that the integrity of the electoral roll is based on the right to be enrolled and the right to vote. This bill attacks those rights in the grossest of ways. The argument about electoral integrity is a smokescreen for the government’s attempts to marginalise those Australians who they believe will not vote for them.

This debate presents a good opportunity to remind the House and the government of Australia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because in my view this bill breaches them. The ability of a person to cast a vote and have a say in choosing their government is, after all, a fundamental human right. Article 25 of the covenant provides:

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, ... without unreasonable restrictions:

(a)

To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or indirectly, through freely chosen representatives;

(b)

To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

Frankly, I am most concerned that this legislation breaks that obligation under article 25. This bill represents a violation of the fundamental rights of Australians to participate in their democracy. Under the proposed amendments, the burden of obtaining proof of identity or a prescribed witness in order to enrol will fall clearly and disproportionately heavily on non-English speakers, Indigenous Australians, young first-time voters, itinerants, and people who live in remote areas, due to language, cultural, bureaucratic and/or other geographical issues.

I am concerned about the removal of voting rights for people serving full-time prison sentences of any length. This is something that I take to be a flagrant breach of the ICCPR. I am very concerned about the proposal to reduce the close of rolls period. There is always a rush for people to get on the roll or update their enrolment. These new measures will make it even harder for people to get on the roll. The government agree that there is a rush to enrol once an election is called. The AEC agree. It is always a busy time, but the government response to avoiding the rush is simply to stop people enrolling.

That, in my view, is fundamentally undemocratic. It is a clear violation of the right and opportunity, without unreasonable restrictions, to vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections. These new provisions are a clear recipe for the disenfranchisement of Australians come polling day. The best way to protect the integrity of the electoral roll is to ensure that the Australian Electoral Commission is truly independent and has the resources to maintain an accurate and up-to-date roll at all times. Yet, one of the first actions of the coalition government when elected in 1996 was to cut the AEC’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Electoral Education Service. The effect was to reduce the number of field officers employed by the Australian Electoral Commission. As well as working on maintaining the roll, these officers provided invaluable education programs to encourage participation in the democratic process.

The coalition want to make it harder for citizens to get on the roll and vote on polling day. They want to create an atmosphere of mistrust and confusion and to alienate voters. Their claims of protecting the integrity of the electoral system are simply a smokescreen. Election after election, the official reports of the Australian Electoral Commission find no evidence of voter rorting. It exists only in the twisted minds of those who want this process restricted. The AEC wrote in October 2001 in Electoral Backgrounder:

... there is no evidence to suggest that the overall outcomes of the 1984, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996 and 1998 federal elections were affected by fraudulent enrolment and voting.

It warned:

... ill-informed and biased criticism of the electoral system ... has the potential to undermine public confidence in the integrity of democratic processes and the legitimacy of governments.

On balance this bill will do more to harm the right of Australians to vote than it will to protect the electoral processes from fraud and multiple voting. The Commonwealth Electoral Act should serve the people of Australia by making it simple and straightforward for people to get on the roll and stay on the roll. We need to give the AEC the resources to maintain the integrity of the roll rather than strip the rights of Australians to vote.

I have grave fears for the people of my own electorate of Lingiari should this bill be passed. Lingiari is sparsely populated and covers an area one-sixth of Australia’s land mass—an area of 1.34 million square kilometres. The electorate includes the Indian Ocean territories of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The electorate has a substantial Indigenous population, with 45 per cent of the people counted in the electorate in the 2001 census identifying as Indigenous. The census also identified a younger population compared with other electorates. For many in the electorate of Lingiari and for the bulk of the Indigenous population, English is a second or even third or fourth language.

In Lingiari in the 2004 federal election approximately 45 per cent of votes cast were cast at mobile polling booths. The turnout of voters in communities serviced by mobile teams was 56.07 per cent; the total turnout was 78 per cent of enrolled voters in the electorate. The informal vote at the static booths in the towns was four per cent; the informal vote for the mobile booths was 7.5 per cent; and the informal vote overall was 6.8 per cent.

You do not have to be too smart to appreciate that, based on that data, there is a real issue with ensuring greater participation of people in the electorate in the voting system and ensuring that when people participate they have the skills to vote correctly. These amendments in no way address these more important objectives of our democratic system. What they will do, on the other hand, is minimise the opportunity for Indigenous people to vote. Not only will we get fewer voters turning out, but a larger proportion of the votes will be informal.

That is what they desire. It is a fundamental political objective to minimise the role of Indigenous people in the voting system—in the Northern Territory, at least. They know why that is: based on the results from those mobile polling teams and across the Territory generally, 75 to 80 per cent of Indigenous people vote for the Labor Party and not the government. That is what it is—crude, simple politics.

I will just make an observation. If the changes to the closing of the rolls proposed by this bill were in effect prior to the 2004 election, 3,749 people in the Northern Territory who made new enrolments or who transferred or updated their enrolment in the seven days following the announcement of the election would have been excluded from voting. That is the impact of this legislation.

In terms of young people, in the lead-up to the 2004 election there were 835 new enrolments in the NT. When the changes this bill proposes were discussed in 2004, I was sent a letter by the Youth Action and Policy Association, which stated:

We believe that this bill will effectively exclude thousands of young people from voting. It has been well established that young people 18-24 years have the lowest enrolment figure of any eligible age group. According to recent information from the AEC, only about 60% of 18 year olds are currently enrolled to vote.

It has also been proven that young people are far more transient than other age groups and often leave their enrolment to the last minute. Young adults having reached the age of independence, are often moving out of home, or between rental accommodation due to their employment and education prospects.

We believe that this bill unfairly targets young people and will effectively limit the political voice of young people across the nation. In the first week of the 2001 election campaign, 83,000 first time voters signed up in the 7 days after the election was called ...

If this legislation had been in place in 2001, what proportion of those 83,000 would have actually cast a vote? My guess is that close to 80 or 90 per cent—perhaps 70,000 or 80,000 of those young people who enrolled to vote at that time—would not have been able to vote. This is a recipe for undermining the democratic rights of Australians.

Indigenous Australians in remote locations often do not have equitable access to services like regular mail—they might have a twice-weekly mail service if they are dead lucky—to be able to send enrolment forms or receive correspondence about their enrolment from the AEC. That is if they are aware of what their rights as citizens are. Because of the abolition of the education service that was in place prior to 1996, a lot of young Indigenous people will not know of their obligations as citizens and how they are to enrol to vote. The government took no cognisance of this when it drafted this legislation or, if it did, deliberately chose to ignore it and instead pursued the objective of ensuring that these young Indigenous Australians do not get the right to vote.

Many of those people in the Northern Territory in particular have poorer literacy and numeracy skills arising as a direct result of decisions taken by the government to limit their access to education. They are extremely disadvantaged young Australians. To illustrate this, only 34 per cent of Indigenous year 5 students in the Northern Territory achieved the national reading benchmark compared to 71 per cent of non-Indigenous students. I have reservations about benchmarking, but this figure clearly reflects the disadvantage Indigenous people are at when it comes to participating in the electoral process in terms of literacy and understanding the forms they will be required to fill in. The disproportionately high number of Indigenous people in jail, which I will refer to later, is also of concern. Then there is the issue of Defence Force personnel. Defence Force career rotations mean that personnel are constantly transferring between states. In the Northern Territory the number of enrolments transferred between states in the seven days before the 2004 election was 1,439.

Enrolling people and their staying correctly enrolled in the seat of Lingiari presents unique challenges for the AEC. You only have to observe the conditions which prevail in northern Australia at the moment with cyclones. Extreme cyclonic conditions, poor transport infrastructure, lack of telecommunications, ceremonial obligations for Indigenous people, death and other factors can cause large numbers of voters not to be present in their normal community of residence when elections are called. Given the large size and mobile nature of the population, maintaining an accurate electoral roll and conducting elections presents a challenge not found in the majority of other electorates across Australia.

It is absolutely irresponsible to propose the closure of rolls effectively at 8 pm on the day of the issue of the writs for an election. What this will do is disenfranchise thousands of Australians, particularly Indigenous Australians, who live in remote communities. The government makes no apology for that because it is a deliberate policy objective of this legislation.

This government has deliberately chosen to limit and weaken the AEC’s ability to fulfil a meaningful educative role. This is an absolute scandal and an indictment of the Howard government’s treatment of people that live in remote communities. Prior to 1996, when the government got rid of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Electoral Information Service, there were 16 full-time officers working on educating and enrolling people across remote communities, including three employed in the Territory. Their positions no longer exist. Who is to undertake this role?

The main population centre in the electorate of Lingiari is Alice Springs. It has no permanent AEC presence. AEC field officers, based in Darwin, are active in the electorate given that within Lingiari there are some 66 local government authorities, with many servicing small, isolated outstations, plus the special lease communities of Yulara and Jabiru. Given the mobility of the population it is difficult for the field officers to have contact with voters and potential voters from one election to the next. This is an indictment of this government. It is especially difficult for Indigenous community members to be aware of enrolment obligations and procedures and to have opportunities to enrol at the age of 18.

The member for O’Connor, in his contribution, said that people under the age of 18 were delinquent under the act if they were not enrolled. This government is delinquent. It is delinquent in not providing Indigenous Australians and people under the age of 18 with an opportunity to understand their obligations as Australian citizens to vote. If no-one has told them about their obligations, if they are not taught about their obligations, how do they get this understanding? Does it just come through the ether? Somehow or another, in walking around the community, it will be infused into their brains that they have got to enrol to vote and they have got to know how  to vote. How is this to happen? This makes an absolute mockery of this government’s belief in democracy. The government espouses our virtues as a nation of spreading democracy across the world, giving people the right to vote; but, on the other hand, through this very piece of legislation, it is taking away the right of many Australians to vote and to participate in the democratic processes that we expect all Australians to participate in as Australian citizens. That is an absolute indictment of this government.

I am very concerned about this. I spoke before of my concerns about people in prisons. Let us look at the target group here. In the case of Lingiari, we know who the target group is: Indigenous Australians. This bill will be particularly discriminatory to Indigenous people in incarceration. Let me give the House a snapshot of the circumstances of Indigenous Australians in jail. The majority of Indigenous prisoners in Australia are serving sentences of less than three years. Twenty per cent are serving six months or less, 24 per cent are serving six to 12 months, 42 per cent are serving one to five years and 16 per cent are serving five-plus years. In the Northern Territory about 80 per cent of the prison population at any given time is Indigenous. Think about it: 80 per cent. The Indigenous rate of imprisonment is 1,687 persons per 100,000 Indigenous adults. The non-Indigenous rate of imprisonment is 158 persons per 100,000 adults. Between 2002 and 2003 the Northern Territory recorded the largest proportional increase—21 per cent—in the Indigenous imprisonment rate.

Regardless of what these people have been sent to prison for, they are being targeted by this legislation. They will be denied the opportunity to participate in the democratic processes. This, in my view, is an absolute denial of their fundamental rights as Australians and in breach of our obligations under the convention I read out earlier. This denial of fundamental rights, as I have said, reflects the sinister intention of this government to rub out the voice of those people who will not vote for them.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the parliament today on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005. At the outset, I reject and repudiate in the strongest terms the previous sentiments and remarks of the member for Lingiari. The Australian people have elected the Howard government on four occasions now. They have elected us because we are in the business of reform, we are in the business of implementing measures that make a difference to their lives, we are not beholden to or hijacked by any interest group and we are not at the mercy of any individual Australian or any group of Australians that clamours for political support exclusively. We are elected to govern in the national interest and this bill is part of the ongoing reform which modernises the electoral system, bringing it into the 21st century and making it more user-friendly and more in the interests of this country.

The bill responds to a number of priority recommendations of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related thereto. It will address a range of issues, which can broadly be seen as covering three areas: disclosures and authorisations relating to political expenditure and political donations, Australian Electoral Commission requirements and voting integrity. These are three important areas which underpin the validity, the integrity and the legitimacy of the Australian electoral system.

The fundamental and simple purpose of this bill is to update, modernise and bring our electoral system into line with our changing and modernising world. Australia cannot stand still on the economic, industrial or social fronts and neither can we stand still when it comes to strengthening our institutions. This legislation modernises our electoral system and gives it great credibility and integrity.

Current electoral laws need to be updated if we want our electoral system to continue to have the respect of the Australian people. With technological changes there will continue to be great challenges to overcome and we must ensure that our electoral system is able to meet the challenges that technology brings.

One of the reasons the Australian Labor Party continue to languish in opposition is that they just cannot accept that times move on. We live in a world where technology changes our lifestyles, the way that business is conducted and the way government can best perform its duties and carry out its responsibilities. Until the Australian Labor Party can get some inkling of the notion that we are no longer living in the age of the dinosaurs, in an age that is irrelevant to current-day Australia, they will continue to languish in opposition.

Currently, electoral laws allow for political donations of up to $1,500 before disclosure of the donation is necessary. This amount harks back more than a decade to 1992. It is now 2006, of course, and I think that seriously reflects the need for reform. If you compare what $1,500 was worth in 1992 with what it is worth today, you can measure the great difference.

The bill will increase the disclosure threshold from $1,500 to $10,000 with legislated CPI increases. This is a far more realistic figure and is on par with many nations that share our democratic system of government—such as the UK, where the disclosure threshold is £5000, and New Zealand, where the disclosure threshold is $NZ10,000.

Our current political structure is such that we, as members of the federal parliament, depend on financial support to carry out our campaigns. We need to get the support of the community, of business and of those who subscribe to our respective political and party views and philosophies and, in particular, our policies. We have to be realistic and to acknowledge that we do need extra support to help us in our campaigns to promote our re-elections, as may be the case. Any donations to individual members of parliament or political parties go into legitimate accounts that support specific campaigning purposes; they do not go into any secret Swiss bank accounts and they certainly do not go directly into the pockets of members of parliament.

In a democratic nation we cannot utilise the public purse in an unlimited fashion. In a democratic structure, as part of the social contract between the elected representatives and the citizens of a country, there is capacity for this transaction to take place in a legitimate, legal fashion. Taxpayer funding goes into our electoral work; taxpayer dollars go into offering services for the community, representing the community and consulting in the interests of our constituents and our local communities. Political donations have fallen over the last few years but the costs associated with campaigning continue to increase.

It has often been said that democracy is certainly not perfect but in an imperfect world it is the best system that mankind has to offer. It gives people a direct stake in their nation and in the elected representatives of their country. There is no other country that I would wish to be a citizen of. If you look around the world, the countries that have flourished economically and have given their people every opportunity to be empowered and to maximise their lives have been those that have subscribed to a democratic and representative system of government and politics.

Businesses, entities and individuals support individual members of parliament, or those campaigning as candidates, because they support their objectives, their policies or their vision, as the case may be, irrespective of what side of politics one happens to be on. Aren’t we better off increasing the threshold for donations to encourage donors? The fewer political donors we have, the more politicians will possibly be relying on a small number of donors. Keeping this change in mind, the threshold for tax deductibility for political donations will also be increased from the current $100 to $1,500.

A related issue is the current requirement for publishers and broadcasters to disclose political advertising returns. This is a task that is already undertaken by the individuals and organisations that authorise these advertisements as required under the Electoral Act. The bill will remove the redundant requirement on publishers and broadcasters to disclose political advertising returns. What is the need to duplicate this role when this has already been undertaken? It is an extra expense and an extra administrative cost on publishers and broadcasters that serves no real purpose. We have to minimise—and, where possible, eliminate—the red tape and bureaucracy that are the cause of delays and difficulties for businesses.

One of the most obvious issues with the current Electoral Act is that, unlike print, radio or television advertising, political advertising on the internet does not need to be authorised. This omission has come about because of technological changes, but the status quo should not be allowed to persist. I want to mention one of the examples that I referred to earlier where technology has moved on and the system has not caught up with it. We have to bring the system in line with technology as far as is humanly possible.

This bill will introduce regulations that will treat political advertising on the internet like all other political advertising, requiring it to be properly authorised. It is only right that all political advertising be correctly and fully authorised so that readers, viewers and listeners are fully informed about the sources from which the information originates. The Australian public deserves to know the identities behind political advertising. We would not want a situation in which there is scope for fraudulent misrepresentation by aspiring candidates or political parties of whatever political persuasion. This also holds for the issue of third parties who engage in political campaigning. Under the new legislation, these third parties will be required to lodge annual disclosures for political expenditure, including advertising outside campaigning times.

As I mentioned, the integrity of the electoral system is at the heart of this bill. The second area that the bill is aimed at is therefore giving greater validity to our voting system. The bill will reduce the close of roll period currently in place. Unenrolled voters will have until 8 pm on the day the writ for the poll is issued to submit their enrolment. Enrolled voters will have three working days to update their enrolment. Australian citizens are required to enrol to vote when they become 18 or take up Australian citizenship. We are also required to keep details with the Australian Electoral Commission up to date and accurate. This is an ongoing responsibility, not just something that should creep up on Australians whenever an election might be called. By closing the rolls at this time, there is ample time for the Australian Electoral Commission to enter data and verify details before the election. During the 2004 election, the AEC was required to make almost 400,000 new enrolments or changes to enrolments from the time the poll was called to the close of rolls.

Also crucial to the integrity of our voting system is the introduction of proof of identity requirements when enrolling to vote or voting as a provisional voter on polling day. It stands to reason that Australians who wish to demonstrate their right to vote should prove that they are legitimately and legally entitled to vote. I cannot for the life of me understand why, as has often been said, it is much more difficult to take a video out from a video store than to go and vote in the name of someone else and defraud and devalue the integrity of our democratic process.

Currently, naturalised Australians are the only people required to provide extra proof of identity to the AEC. Naturalised Australians are required to write their grant numbers on the application for enrolment. I cannot see why naturalised Australians are singled out by our political system to be scrutinised in this manner when no other citizen has to provide this proof.

We in Queensland recall the notorious Shepherdson inquiry, with high-level members of the Queensland Labor Party found to be deeply enmeshed in electoral fraud—tampering with the electoral rolls, forging enrolments and making false enrolments. Senior people in the Labor Party were called to account for it in a most shameful way. They were called to account by legitimate authorities. The Labor Party continues to hang its head in shame over that episode.

These violations in our electoral system went all the way up to the Deputy Premier at the time, Mr Jim Elder. He gave evidence at the inquiry indicating that these practices were widespread in sections of the ALP. These violations were documented as stretching back to at least the mid-1980s. The hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party knows no bounds. Those members of the Queensland ALP—I mentioned Jim Elder; there was also the then member for Woodridge, Mike Kaiser—might have forfeited their seats in parliament at the time, but the bottom line of it all is that they were defrauding and ripping off every Queenslander’s right to vote. They were thumbing their nose at the great honour and privilege it is to go into a polling booth and vote for one’s party or candidate of choice.

Enrolment is the right and responsibility of all Australian citizens who are eligible. We cannot let this right, this privilege—indeed, this honour—be sullied or tarnished by fraudulent actions. There must be no leeway whatsoever in this. No Australian must feel that their vote is cheated or means less than any other person’s. The simple requirement to provide a driver’s licence number or something similar is, I think, not too much to ask to ensure the legitimacy of our electoral system. It would allow for cross-checking so that irregularities or problems could be brought to the surface. It is the least we can do to ensure that each Australian’s right to vote is not eroded or diminished in value by those who would defraud our system of government and our system of democracy.

The same principle stands for provisional voting. During the last election almost 30,000 provisional votes were accepted where the names of the voters were later not able to be found on the electoral rolls. Thirty thousand provisional votes is no small number of votes. A simple requirement to provide proof of identity safeguards our electoral system.

Prisoners serving a full-time detention sentence have been stripped of their right to vote. Those on remand, on periodic detention, on parole or serving non-custodial sentences will continue to have the right to vote. It is the view of the Howard government that people who commit serious offences against society, against the community, should forfeit their right to vote; that if their actions, their conduct and their crime against their fellow Australians or against their society warrant a prison term then it should follow that their entitlement to vote should not continue. I think most Australians would agree with the government on this point. I think many Australians would feel astounded to think that someone who has committed a crime against society or against an individual and has forfeited their freedom—which is a very precious thing, of course—would still have the same voting entitlement as other, law-abiding citizens.

I now want to talk about changes to the AEC. Another important amendment will see a requirement for AEC offices to be located within the division they represent unless specific approval is provided by the minister. This is particularly pertinent in my electorate of Ryan. We had a divisional office—and a number of other electorates in Brisbane were also in that situation—but that office was removed from the Ryan electorate. In early 2004 the AEC centralised many of its offices and relocated.

In the case of Ryan, this occurred just two weeks before the state election, so my office was flooded with constituents who were greatly inconvenienced. The prospect of having to travel all the way into Brisbane city after they had already travelled to Indooroopilly was immensely annoying and frustrating. With three elections in Brisbane that year, including the national election, this terrible timing caused enormous problems for Ryan residents. Now, rather than being able to attend to electoral matters locally within their own electorate, constituents of Ryan and those in a number of other electorates must go into Brisbane to resolve these issues.

Other changes include an increase in nomination deposits for candidates and allowing limited access to the electoral roll for commercial purposes. This will be restricted to organisations that are required to verify a person’s identity under the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988. Commercial access will be allowed for this purpose and for this purpose only.

I very strongly commend the bill to the parliament. I think it will have the overwhelming support of my constituents in the Ryan electorate. Democracy in Australia is a century old. Commonwealth citizens in the nation of Australia were given their right to vote in 1901. It is a great privilege to be living in a democratic nation, in a system where one can elect a government or throw a government out as the case may be. It is a great position for a citizen of this country to be in. Whilst there has been a lot of talk and criticism about politics and politicians, I think at the end of the day an overwhelming number of Australians would feel that they would rather have the system that they have in place in this country than the systems that exist in many other parts of the world.

One can look around the world and see countries that are struggling, that have enormous problems, that are experiencing civil war, that have chaos and that have no economic prospects of giving their people a better life. I think it is a reasonable statement to make that countries that have governments duly elected by their people have greater prospects of delivering benefits to their people and to their societies because they have a mandate to govern. They have something special, and that is legitimacy through their people.

There is a lesson for the opposition in my concluding remarks. A government is given legitimacy, and to try to point out otherwise is only delivering a blow to the people of Australia. It is saying to them that their decision to vote for candidate X, Y, Z or for party X, Y, Z was wrong, incorrect or illegitimate and that they should have known better and voted for someone else. I think that is an astonishing position to take. What any party in opposition should say is: ‘Yes, you voted for the other crowd on the last occasion, but we think we can do a better job and this is why. These are our policies, these are our credentials and these are our talents, and we are going to put them forward to you at the next election.’ They should come up with alternative policies and show the people that sort of respect.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia has an A-grade democracy, and we should give thanks every day of our lives that we live here. But that does not mean that it is perfect, that we should be complacent and that we cannot do better. And we certainly have to safeguard it against attacks. One of the biggest flaws in our democracy—and I am not saying Australia is alone in this; far from it—is the cost of elections and the way in which political parties and candidates can become beholden to those who contribute to their campaign funds.

In Australia, the Australian Labor Party introduced election disclosure laws designed to introduce some transparency into the campaign funding process. Labor does not believe people should be able to donate money to political parties or to candidates in secret, behind closed doors. Corruption flourishes in the dark. The best antidote to it is sunlight, disclosure. These laws have not been perfect, and people have worked tirelessly to try to get around them, but what the Liberal Party is proposing to do with the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 is utterly shameless and utterly disgraceful. This bill seeks to emasculate and weaken the election disclosure laws. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation to come before the parliament in my 10 years here. In terms of its corrosive, cancerous impact on the quality of Australian democracy and its invitation to corrupt practices and secret commissions, it may well be the worst.

This bill reflects the government’s intent to abuse its new-found Senate majority to reshape Australia’s political system to the advantage of the Liberal and National parties at the expense of the very health and integrity of Australia’s democracy. I urge the government not to turn off the light of transparency and plunge us into the darkness of corrupt, secret backroom deals.

One of the greatest safeguards against people trying to buy political influence is the knowledge that campaign donations will be disclosed. The Howard government’s plans will change that. They will allow secret backroom deals. They will allow ministers and government MPs to hand out contracts and favourable policy decisions in exchange for campaign donations. And we will not know it is happening, because those campaign donations will be secret. This is absolutely the wrong way for Australia to go.

I believe we should be moving to strengthen the campaign disclosure laws, not white-ant them. We should be closing the loopholes, not knocking the house down. I believe we should enact measures that ensure that all fundraising bodies and trusts assisting political parties, politicians or candidates fully and promptly disclose their accounts and the source of their income.

This bill goes in the opposite direction. It will allow donations of up to $10,000 to remain anonymous, up from the present $1,500 limit by over six times. The potential for rorting increases exponentially when you consider that political parties that have national, state and territory organisations each registered separately can receive donations of up to $90,000 on the quiet. This is a shameless and brazen move by the Liberal Party to advantage itself at the expense of the integrity of Australian political life.

Liberal minister Senator Abetz has spoken about ‘a return to the good old days when people used to donate to the Liberal Party via lawyers’ trust accounts’. In February this year Louise Dodson reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, under the heading ‘Donate to us on the quiet, Libs tell business’, that the federal Liberal Party was directly asking 1,000 leading company directors for donations to the Liberal Party, making clear to them that these donations would be secret. The Liberal Party’s treasurer, John Calvert-Jones, said in the article:

The lifting of the threshold for disclosure of political donations would help the Liberals’ finances ...

Talk about giving the game away. Talk about letting the cat out of the bag. This is naked, shameless self-interest.

To make matters even worse, the Liberal Party also plans to deliver a huge tax break for campaign donors, lifting the amount that can be claimed as a tax deduction from $100 to $5,000. Why should someone get a tax break for donating to a political party? Tax deductibility for political donations should be abolished, not increased. Again it is naked, shameless self-interest—the Liberal Party putting its own political advantage ahead of the national interest and a clean, corruption-free political system.

The biggest issue in Australia in the past few months has been the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal involving AWB. Until 2002-03 AWB made no political contributions at all. In 2002-03 it gave political parties $10,530. This rose to $74,245 in 2003-04 and to $124,145 in 2004-05. Why might a company that had managed to prosper for years without making any political donations suddenly start making donations, and indeed dramatically increase those donations in the space of just two years? We can all see that AWB greatly increased the size of its political contributions once investigators from the United Nations Volcker inquiry started to closely examine allegations that AWB had paid kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime in breach of UN sanctions. Why? It is pretty plain that AWB senior personnel had worked out that the balloon was going up and they wanted a few friends at court. People with legal training might refer to their behaviour as showing ‘consciousness of guilt’ or ‘consciousness of wrongdoing’. Were these donations intended to contribute to the health and vibrancy of democracy in Australia? I very much doubt it. AWB was essentially looking to undermine and subvert it and save itself from the consequences of its actions. The vast majority of these campaign donations went to the Liberal and National parties—$120,515 to the Liberal Party and $29,680 to the National Party. It paid $57,225 to the Labor Party and $1,500 to the Australian Democrats.

The Labor Party has not been bought by these donations. We have pursued the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal relentlessly both inside and outside the parliament. Our national secretary, Tim Gartrell, recognising the tainted nature of these donations, has paid over all the money donated to Labor’s national office to the Australian committee for UNICEF’s Iraqi children’s appeal. But the Liberal and National parties have pocketed their AWB donations, donations that under the bill before the House could be made in secret. And has AWB got value for their donations to the Liberal and National parties? They have, in spades! This has been influence-buying at its most successful. Throughout the years of the campaign donations this government turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the chorus of warnings from home and abroad that AWB was paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Those kinds of falsehoods should not be allowed to stand. I ask that those allegations be withdrawn.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moncrieff. I am listening carefully.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A spurious attempt to prevent the facts of this matter from being revealed. The member for Moncrieff’s lack of respect for parliamentary processes is clear. I do not claim that the campaign donations were the only ingredient explaining the government’s conduct. I referred in parliament earlier this week to the six Howard government ministers and MPs who had AWB shares. There is also the role of appointments of National Party personnel such as Trevor Flugge and former Anderson staffer Daryl Hockey. But the campaign donations contributed to a culture of cronyism which went from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade bureaucrats all the way up to the Prime Minister. Everyone in the government trusted their AWB mates. Whatever AWB directors and executives said was always good enough for the Howard government. AWB was a creature of the coalition government and, in our international dealings, the government returned the favour and acted as an arm of AWB.

We know from evidence tabled at the Cole inquiry that, under the previous Labor government, these contracts were subjected to rigorous scrutiny. DFAT was all over the original BHP deal to provide wheat to Iraq, but DFAT officials have repeatedly testified to the Cole commission that under the Howard government they acted as a mere postbox and did not check the contracts for compliance with UN resolutions. What a shocking abdication of their responsibilities. What were they collecting their salaries for? The fact is that the closeness of the relationship between AWB and the Howard government, reinforced by campaign donations, made the government incapable of objective judgment. It was unable to take the action needed to give these contracts proper scrutiny.

Instead, it covered for AWB. We had Prime Minister Howard saying AWB was ‘a very straight up-and-down group of people’. He said, ‘I can’t, on my knowledge and understanding of the people involved, imagine for a moment that they would have been involved in anything improper.’ We had the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs denying the allegations and attacking anyone who made them.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wills will return to the substance of the bill, please.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I am saying is absolutely germane to the bill. I am concerned that, if this bill passes, donations by companies like AWB to the Liberal and National parties will be secret and will not be transparent, and we will not be able to make judgments about them. I consider these remarks absolutely germane to the bill.

We had our ambassador telling a United States Senate committee chairman, in order to prevent a US Senate inquiry into AWB’s conduct, absolute falsehoods. We sent AWB personnel, such as Trevor Flugge and Daryl Hockey, into post-Saddam Iraq, and paid them handsomely out of the aid budget. So did AWB’s campaign donations pay off? You bet your sweet bippy they did. And they are still paying off.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order in accordance with standing order 90. It is very clear that the member for Wills is making imputations of improper motives time and time again. I would ask you to rule these comments out of order. They are completely false and they deserve not to be placed on the record.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Standing order 90, Member for Moncrieff, refers to reflection on members. Is that what you intended to raise?

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. These comments reflect on members of the government.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Wills, I have already indicated I need to hear discussion about the bill. I agree with the member for Wills that campaign donations are relevant. However, the member for Wills should stay within the realms of the debate.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. The sorts of campaign donations which AWB made will be easy to keep secret under this bill. You simply donate amounts of up to $10,000 to the various state branches of the political parties. An examination of the disclosures reported by the Australian Electoral Commission at the start of February this year shows that nearly $8 million in donations to the Liberal Party would have gone undisclosed under this bill. The member for Moncrieff might not want to hear it, but that is the fact. That is $8 million even before you factor in the probability of companies arranging their affairs so as to get under the new limit.

In order to comprehend the possibilities under these proposed reforms, if you have a look at the donations given to the Victorian division of the Liberal Party in 2004-05 you get the situation into perspective and you can see the democracy-eroding future awaiting Australia under these reforms. If the threshold for declaring donations had been $10,000 then 154 of the 205 donations given to the Victorian division of the Liberal Party in the last financial year would have been from unknown donors. It should probably be assumed that if the disclosure limits for political donations were to be amended to $10,000, as this bill proposes, then most of the 11 donations of exactly $10,000 would have been amended to $9,999 to hide their donor’s identity. Including these donations on the cusp of the proposed disclosure limit, 165 out of the 205 donations would be anonymous. This equates to over 80 per cent of all declared donations. So in the state of Victoria alone the Liberal Party would have been potentially able to give anonymity to over 80 per cent of previously declared donors had this law been in effect during the last financial year.

Furthermore, it is apparent that the Victorian Liberal Party, for example, would have enjoyed increased amounts of donations once donors realised that they did not have to disclose their generosity. Top companies in Australia have been reassessing their policies on donating to political parties, speculating on whether or not it is worth the grief that they receive from the media, the public and shareholders alike. You have had companies like AMP, Lend Lease and National Australia Bank deciding to stop donating to political parties at all. Clearly the government’s proposed reforms are aimed at tempting those major companies who have opted out of making political donations into donating again with the security of absolute secrecy. This seems almost certain, considering that when the member for Wentworth was Treasurer of the Liberal Party in 2003 he stated that the non-donation policies of many major companies had cost the Liberal Party $700,000 in potential donations during the previous year.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know my colleague the shadow minister for the environment will be interested in an article by Richard Baker in the Age last year which referred to donations to the Liberal and National parties from BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Woodside Western Mining and WesFarmers of $1.69 million, to state and federal coalition parties, accompanied by statements by various of those companies, such as Rio Tinto and Alcoa arguing against emissions trading; BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto saying that it was premature to commit to an emissions trading regime; and Exxon Mobil saying that investments in current renewable energy technology were not economical et cetera.

We know that this is a government that has refused to take the issue of global warming and climate change seriously, notwithstanding its devastating effects both now and in the future on Australia. For example, in North Queensland we have just seen the severity of Cyclone Larry. We have heard the stories about the bleaching of the Barrier Reef, and throughout the rest of Australia we have the prospect of droughts, bushfires, storms and the like. Notwithstanding that, we have a government that refuses to take seriously the matters which could be done to deal with these problems through international action to tackle climate change, such as ratifying the Kyoto protocol on climate change, the introduction of emissions trading and support for renewable energy. None of those things has happened, and Australia has been lagging behind international practice and not taking climate change seriously. When you see some of the donations that have been reported from various companies which are opposed to these measures, there is certainly a case for undue influence.

There is a range of other measures in this bill which others have spoken to—in particular, there is great community concern about the attack on young people implicit in the changes to the close of the rolls period after the writs are issued. The deputy school captain from Mercy College in my electorate, Gail Garcia, said:

It seems to me that under the new legislation more people would be compelled to enrol to vote quickly, which is an inconvenience. Most people don’t want to be pushed. They do want to vote but they have severe time constraints. A lot of teenagers are interested in politics and voting but they’re always going to put VCE first.

It is clear to her and it is clear to many other people in my electorate that this amounts to an attack on young people. So I strongly support, and I urge the House to support, the amendment to the second reading moved by my colleague the member for Bruce, which suggests that we not support this bill until the undemocratic provisions which reduce the period of time Australians have to enrol to vote— (Time expired)

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005, because it embraces a number of the recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I have the privilege of being a member. As part of my role as a member of that committee I undertook to travel right across the length and breadth of Australia, talking to people from towns and cities and taking on board their advice about the ways in which we can make Australian democracy function even better than it currently does.

In due course I would like to turn my mind to some of the hypocritical remarks made by the member for Wills, which underscore the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in this debate. Time and time again, we see the Australian Labor Party say one thing in this chamber but do the complete opposite in reality. I will come to those remarks in a moment.

At this stage I would like to focus on a couple of key points—that is, to acknowledge the hard and diligent work performed by the chair of the committee, Mr Tony Smith, the member for Casey, as well as the hard work put in by Senators Brandis and Mason and me and Ms Sophie Panopoulos, whose electorate name escapes me—

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indi.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Indi, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The committee functioned very well and played an important role in undertaking dialogue with people across a variety of places throughout Australia, including the residents in the town of Innisfail, which, as we know, was unfortunately very adversely affected by the recent passage of Cyclone Larry through the area.

This bill before the chamber today contains a number of key recommendations that flowed from the committee’s report. These recommendations were taken upon the best evidence that came before the committee. These recommendations flow from the overwhelming weight of evidence that the committee took from Australians throughout the country. A number of them made the point very strongly that, through some tweaking and some changes, our very good system could become even better.

It was also troubling for me to learn of some ways in which potential weaknesses in our electoral system were exploited by minor parties and, indeed, in some instances exploited by major parties. I think it is very important that the chamber pass this bill and that the Senate pass this bill so that all Australians can rest more comfortably in the knowledge that those democratic institutions empowered with ensuring that the will of the Australian people is best reflected in the election result are able to do so and that the result is a true reflection of the will of the people.

We have seen instances in the past, as brought out in the Shepherdson inquiry in Queensland, where the Australian Labor Party ruthlessly and nefariously exploited our electoral system to their advantage in marginal Labor seats. And I know certainly that within the state of Queensland there is widespread community concern that we should never again see people like Mike Kaiser elected to roles in state parliament when they have had their hands dirtied by what have been shown by the Shepherdson inquiry to be grubby political tricks, which actually resulted in that particular member resigning from the Queensland state parliament.

At this stage I would like to turn my attention to some comments that were made by the member for Wills. We saw the outrage and the feigned indignation from the Australian Labor Party as the member for Wills stood in this chamber and spoke at length, saying that increasing the political donations threshold would open up the potential for the Australian parliament to be corrupted. We saw the feigned indignation from the Australian Labor Party as they purported to explain that increasing the disclosure limit to $10,000, with the opportunity for there perhaps to be multiple donations through a number of divisions, in some way is the end of the bona fides of the Australian political system. In typical Labor Party style, it is a case of not listening to what they say but watching what they do. The member for Wills’s comments reflect comments that were made by Mr Griffin, who had this to say on political donations in this very place on 29 March this year. He said a claim that amounts of $10,000 and below were not enough to improperly influence political parties:

… completely ignores the fact that ... a party can receive multiple donations from the same donor. This fact clearly increases the chances of corrupt behaviour ...

Sound familiar? That sounds remarkably like the member for Wills. He continued:

... you would not have to be Einstein to work out that as the amounts of money increase so do the chances of inappropriate, or even corrupt, behaviour.

Again, that sounds remarkably like the previous speaker in this debate. This is where it gets very interesting, because the Australian union movement have written the rule book and are streets ahead of anybody else when it comes to multiple donations and the opportunity to buy your way into this parliament or the opportunity to buy your way when it comes to policy. In 2004-05 more than 260 separate donations from unions flowed to the Australian Labor Party, the party whose members have the audacity to come into this chamber and lecture us on why this is a bad move—260 separate donations from the Australian union movement. That is the reason that the Australian Labor Party is a completely owned element of the Australian trade union movement.

In 2004-05 the top five multiple union donors to the ALP were: fifth, the AMWU with 27 separate donations to the value of $325,455; fourth, the CEPU with 31 donations totalling $238,333; third, the TWU with 32 donations totalling $99,996; second, the CFMEU with 46 donations to the amount of $890,752; and, coming in at first place, the MUA with 47 separate donations to the tune of $78,350. Just for the top five that is a total of 183 separate donations from the trade union movement to the tune of some $1.6 million. By its own admission, the Australian Labor Party believes that receipt of multiple donations ‘clearly’, to use the quotation of the Australian Labor Party, ‘increases the chances’ of corruption.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a similar argument to that put by the member for Moncrieff before. The member referred to the honourable member for Bruce’s comments at the beginning. He is now talking about corruption. He has put an argument against himself, because he knows all those union donations were declared—

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will not debate the point of order. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The member for Moncrieff will link his comments to the bill being discussed.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, my comments are directly linked to the comments that were made by the member for Wills. The member for Wills stood in this chamber making the claim that multiple donations open up opportunities for corruption, yet we see that the Australian Labor Party is the key recipient of multiple donations from the trade union movement. I wonder how much inappropriate and corrupt behaviour 260 individual donations from the union movement buys in the Australian Labor Party.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My point of order, under standing order 91(e), is that he has repeated the allegation, this time against a separate member—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat now. That was not a point of order. The member for Moncrieff is linking his comments to the bill quite directly.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me repeat what I said, because clearly the member for Grayndler is not listening. I am simply posing the question. When the ALP says multiple donations buy corruption, I simply ask how much inappropriate and corrupt behaviour—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the member for Moncrieff has repeated the allegation. The ALP’s position is that undisclosed donations are potentially corrupt. It is very clear that he has linked those comments to a number of members and I ask him to withdraw what he has said and stop repeating what is a wrong statement.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grayndler and call the member for Moncrieff.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it is very clear that the union movement with 260 individual donations would appear, if you follow the logic of the member for Wills, to be in a situation where they are able to have perhaps inappropriate and corrupt influences on the Australian Labor Party.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Grayndler, I hope this is not a tedious point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the member persists in linking in the same sentence names of my colleagues and corruption. He persists in doing it. This is the fourth time that he has done it. I ask him to withdraw.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grayndler. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I am not going to ask the member to withdraw. The member for Grayndler will know that this is a very important bill. The debate with the member for Wills was wide ranging; the chair allowed that to occur. In this instance what I am hearing is the effects of political donations on various parties.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not wish to drag the debate down and get bogged on this one point, so I will move on. There are other areas of significant concern to me as well. But I want to refute the accusation made by the Australian Labor Party and question their logic when they come into this House and criticise the electoral reforms before the House when it is very clear that they are one of the key beneficiaries of multiple union donations. I simply question the logic that applies and suggest that it is nothing but an exercise in absolute and total hypocrisy.

I want to turn to another aspect that was particularly concerning to me. As part of the inquiry, I learned about the way in which liberals for forests conducted themselves. It appears the Labor member for Richmond was a direct beneficiary of what I would consider to be absolutely corrupt practices by the liberals for forests.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it is highly disorderly for the member for Moncrieff to question the integrity of another member and to make imputations about another member. It is highly disorderly of him, and he should withdraw that suggestion.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will listen very closely, but I do not believe the member for Moncrieff tied that to the member.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Labor Party may not like the fact that the member for Richmond is in this parliament because of some kind of dodgy deal by liberals for forests that managed to convince and confuse—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Moncrieff wants to make that type of statement, he has to do it by substantive motion.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The finding of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was that the member for Richmond was a beneficiary—

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it matters nought what the committee found. The honourable member for Moncrieff is making an imputation against another member, and it is highly disorderly.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the standing order that you are taking the point of order on?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer you to page 500 of House of Representatives Practice.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not correct.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I believe ‘Reflections on members’ is—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already ruled on that, Member for Grayndler. I will listen very carefully.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make no apologies for standing up for those residents of Tweed Heads, for those residents in Richmond, who were misled by liberals for forests tickets. I make no apology for the fact that the residents who were misled—and we had them appear before the committee—explained to us how the liberals for forests how-to-vote card was deliberately done in a way to confuse them. A number of them said they were confused. They thought they were voting for a Liberal when their votes were flowing to the Australian Labor Party.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 90, ‘Reflections on members’, says: ‘All imputations—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The member for Moncrieff at the present time is not mentioning a member. The member for Moncrieff is talking about the report and the evidence that was given to the committee.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am astounded that the Australian Labor Party is unable to hear the simple facts, which were the findings of the committee after its inquiry into the 2004 federal election. It is clearly the case that voters in the seat of Richmond were confused by a highly misleading and deceptive how-to-vote card—which the liberals for forests issued—with preferences flowing to the Australian Labor Party.

Liberals for forests in Richmond secured approximately 1,500 votes, despite the liberals for forests candidates not even turning up in the seat of Richmond to campaign, despite the liberals for forests candidate in Richmond living in Sydney and despite the liberals for forests candidate doing essentially no advertising or campaigning of any kind. Despite these facts, 1,500 people voted for liberals for forests. The finding of the committee is that if only one in 10 people had been misled by the liberals for forests how-to-vote ticket out of those 1,500 people who voted for liberals for forests—and we took evidence directly from people who were misled by the liberals for forests ticket——the outcome would have been different. The Labor member for Richmond won by 150 votes.

In my view, it is a simple case of a large number of people being deceived in the seat of Richmond, and the beneficiary of that deception was the Labor member for Richmond. People are angry about that deception, and they have every right to be. So I welcome one of the key initiatives in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005, which is to ensure that this problem will no longer be allowed or permitted to exist. I welcome the fact that a key finding of this committee has been adopted so that this problem will not occur again and the Australian Labor Party will not see one of their candidates elected—whether through some deliberate deal or as a beneficiary of a deal as occurred in the seat of Richmond—because of a deceptive how-to-vote card that the liberals for forests candidate issued in that seat.

There are a number of other key measures that I would like to touch upon in the very short amount of time that I have left. With regard to the disclosure thresholds, I simply have not heard any sound argument that highlights the way in which a $10,000 donation is going to buy any MP. The increase from the amount that was introduced 20 years ago is barely in line with inflation. This increase that the Australian Labor Party rail so strongly against does nothing other than effectively allow the disclosure limit to be CPI indexed. That is hardly a radical concept. The Australian Labor Party can come into this chamber and attribute all sorts of motives behind this increase, but let us put on the record the clear motive, the very simple motive, that it is nothing more than CPI indexation. These kinds of reactionary comments from the Australian Labor Party underscore the fact that they are engaged in a scare campaign about this issue as they do on so many other issues.

I would also like to touch briefly on the early closure of the rolls. We have seen in the Shepherdson inquiry in Queensland that the Australian Labor Party has deliberately rorted enrolments, has deliberately rorted those people who are seeking to enrol and has created fictitious people who enrolled in marginal seats. We saw this happen in Queensland to benefit the Australian Labor Party. So is it any wonder that the committee recommended that there be an earlier closure of the rolls than is currently the case? The reason is that the current closure of the rolls and thousands and the thousands of enrolments that flow in simply do not provide the AEC with the appropriate amount of time required to ensure the bona fides of those who have enrolled. (Time expired)

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary contribution from the member for Moncrieff. This bill is a backward step for democracy in Australia. When it comes to electoral reform, governments have a choice. They can increase transparency and make it easier for people to participate in the democratic process or they can reduce transparency and make it harder for people to vote. When they take the latter course, you can bet it is for partisan political reasons. The government, of course, in this bill is taking the latter approach. This bill reduces transparency and makes it harder for people to participate in Australia’s democratic processes.

There are two concerning aspects of this bill primarily: the change to the threshold for declaring electoral donations and the early closure of the rolls. The government says that the law is that you should change your enrolment immediately you move house and that you should enrol immediately when you turn 18. I have a reality check for the government. Forty per cent of people do not immediately change their enrolment details when they move. These people are not criminals. They are not flouting the law. When you move house you have a million things to do. Changing your electoral enrolment is not necessarily at the top of your list. There are 40 per cent of people who move house in this country every year who do not change their enrolment immediately. They are not criminals but this government’s approach is to deny them their right to vote. An even bigger problem is that people who have turned 18 since the last election also no longer have a right, if this bill is passed, to enrol to vote after the writs are issued. I do not know many 18-year-olds who have as their No. 1 priority in life enrolling to vote when they turn 18. They have other things on their mind. Across the country, 78,000 people enrolled for the first time between the issue of the writs at the last election and the closure of the rolls. That is almost an entire federal electorate which would be disenfranchised once this bill passes this House and the other place.

The government’s rationale for this, as we just heard in that extraordinary contribution from the member for Moncrieff, is that the AEC is deluged with electoral enrolments and therefore its veracity checks are not as reliable as they are at other times. The only problem with that argument is that it is not what the AEC thinks. In a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the AEC said:

When the AEC processes an application for enrolment, every component of the enrolment form is checked for any anomalies and to ensure that it complies with the provisions of the Electoral Act, prior to the form being processed and the elector’s name being entered on the roll. This occurs during close of rolls and in non-election periods.

An elector’s name is not added to, nor amended on, the roll during close of rolls, or at any other time, if the DRO has reason to believe that the enrolment form is not in order or if there is any doubt as to the elector’s entitlement to electoral enrolment. During the roll close period, the AEC applies its established procedures with the same degree of rigour as it does in a non-election period.

That was in the AEC’s submission to this inquiry. But even more telling was the AEC’s submission to the joint standing committee in 2000. Again I quote the Australian Electoral Commission, the independent umpire in Australian elections:

... the early close of rolls will not improve the accuracy of the rolls for an election ... In fact, the expectation is that the rolls for the election will be less accurate, because less time will be available for existing electors to correct their enrolments and for new enrolments to be received.

It gets better. The AEC went on to say, in relation to a proposal to close the roll on the day that writs are issued for an election:

This expected outcome is in direct conflict with the stated policy intention of the Government to improve the accuracy of the rolls. Further, it will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the franchise, an outcome which the AEC cannot support.

Nothing has changed since that submission. There has been no evidence brought forward from the government that anything has changed. This government is rolling the Australian Electoral Commission for its own partisan political purposes and it is a sad day for democracy.

As Brian Costar and Peter Brown pointed out in the Independent Weekly on 18 March this year, the Australian National Audit Office, an independent body, examined the integrity of the electoral roll and could very easily have recommended to the government the early closure of the roll to ensure its integrity. Instead, the Audit Office found:

... overall the Australian electoral roll is one of high integrity, and can be relied on for electoral purposes.

The practice of having a grace period for people to enrol or to change their enrolment after an election has been called is not a new one. It was introduced into the law of this nation in 1983. However, it has effectively been the practice for much longer. In every election from 1940 to 1983, there was a gap between the election date being announced and the issuing of the writ when rolls closed and consequently a gap allowing people to enrol to vote. The smallest gap was in 1949, when people had five days to enrol; the longest gap was in 1958, when there was an extraordinary 63-day gap allowing people to enrol to vote. The average period that people have had to enrol to vote in between the calling of an election and the rolls closing, in the 40 years after that practice was introduced, was 20 days.

The government have no credible rationale apart from their own partisan political purposes for abolishing this longstanding arrangement. They have made a crass political judgment that abolishing the franchise of those people who enrol after the writs are issued is to their partisan advantage. They are particularly disenfranchising the young people of this country. I am also worried about the impact of this bill on people of non-English-speaking backgrounds, many of whom are in my electorate and the electorate of the member for Fowler. The government have an obligation. They can spend their $55 million advertising their workplace relations bill; they can spend their $20 million advertising changes to Medicare before the last election, changes which they then scrapped. If they can find money to advertise that, it is incumbent on them to spend a large amount of money to advertise these changes to the electoral system. They should go and say to people that they no longer have the right to vote.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.