Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move my amendments (1) to (5) together:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 75, page 20 (lines 13-14), omit the item.

(2)    Schedule 1, after item 77, page 20 (after line 21) insert

77A  After section 302

Insert:

Division 3A - Return by candidates

302A  Interpretation

        (1)    In this Division

                 electoral expenditure  in relation to an election, means all expenses incurred by or on behalf of a candidate, and gifts or donations received by or on behalf of the candidate in connection with the election and includes expenditure incurred and gifts or donations received in connection with the election (whether or not incurred during the election period) on:

             (a)    the broadcasting, during the election period, of an advertisement relating to the election; or

             (b)    the publishing on the Internet or in a journal, during the election period, of an advertisement relating to the election; or

             (c)    the display, during the election period, at a theatre or other place of entertainment, of an advertisement relating to the election; or

             (d)    the production of an advertisement relating to the election, being an advertisement that is broadcast, published or displayed as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

             (e)    the production of any material (not being material referred to in paragraph(a), (b) or (c)) that is required under section 328 or 332 to include the name and address of the author of the material or of the person authorizing the material and that is used during the election period; or

              (f)    the production and distribution of electoral matter that is addressed to particular persons or organisations and is distributed during the election period; or

             (g)    the carrying out, during the election period, of an opinion poll, or other research, relating to the election.

                 candidature includes the actions in connection with a candidate’s attempts to be elected as a Senator or as a Member of the House of Representatives.

        (2)    For the purposes of this Division, electoral expenditure incurred by or with the authority of a candidate shall be deemed to have been incurred by that candidate.

302B  Candidates to make returns

        (1)    Within 15 weeks after the polling day in an election every candidate at the election shall sign and provide to the Electoral Commission a return of the electoral expenditure incurred or authorised by the candidate showing

             (a)    all electoral expenditure paid, and

             (b)    any disputed and unpaid claims for electoral expenditure, and

             (c)    the names of persons or organisations who have made gifts or donations to the candidate in connection with the election, and the details of the gifts or donations received.

        (2)    The return must be in accordance with a form set out in the regulations.

        (3)    The Electoral Commission must ensure that returns or certified copies of returns are available for public inspection at an office of the Electoral Commission for a period of 6 months after they have been received by the Commission.

302C  Expenditure etc on behalf of candidate

Any person incurring or authorising any electoral expenditure on behalf of a candidate or providing or making a gift or donation to a candidate without the written authority of the candidate shall be guilty of a contravention of this Act

(3)    Schedule 1, item 82, page 22 (lines 16-17) omit the item.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 128, page 35 (lines 12-13), omit the item.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 130, page 36 (lines 13-14), omit the item.

I will speak briefly to the amendments because I have just spoken to them at some length in the second reading debate. For those members who were not here or who were not particularly interested, in summary the intent of the amendments is essentially to maintain the requirement that media broadcasters and publishers continue to file returns following elections and that associated entities be more clearly defined as to their reporting requirements, to show who their donors are, and for each candidate, regardless of their party affiliation, to file an individual return indicating their donors and expenditure. The amendments are self-explanatory in that sense, and I ask members to support those amendments.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the member for New England in this set of amendments, particularly those pertaining to the retention in this legislation of the disclosure requirements for publishers and broadcasters. I make the point that, where there is an increase in the amount of the donation to $10,000 before a declaration is required, as is proposed in this legislation, combined with the current practice of nil returns from most if not the overwhelming majority of party candidates, and then coupled with the elimination of the requirement for the media to report, it leaves absolutely no way for an individual, Independent or other candidate to seek information about how that opponent candidate’s election is funded. It beggars belief that anybody could consider that this is a move towards more integrity and a more transparent electoral process.

It has been suggested to me by the opposition that their global reporting process provides for sufficient delineation of those donations, but I can tell you that there is absolutely no way, unless these media returns are fully furnished, that I or anybody else—a member of the public or a candidate—can find out who has spent money on behalf of which candidate in any particular electorate. I strongly recommend that the House support these amendments.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member for New England’s amendments be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

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

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Andren, Mr Katter and Mr Windsor voting aye.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move my amendments (1) to (19) and (22) together:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 12-14), omit the item.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (lines 15-25), omit the item.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (lines 14-15), omit the item.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (lines 16-22), omit the item.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 23-25), omit the item.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 20, page 8 (lines 9-11), omit the item.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 24, page 8 (lines 26-28), omit the item.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 28, page 9 (lines 13-15), omit the item.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 39, page 13 (lines 18-19), omit the item.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 40, page 13 (lines 20-22), omit the item.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 41, page 13 (line 23) to page 14 (line 17) , omit the item.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 42, page 14 (lines 18-19), omit the item.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 43, page 14 (lines 20-21), omit the item.

(14)  Schedule 1, item 44, page 14 (lines 22-24), omit the item.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 45, page 14 (lines 25-26), omit the item.

(16)  Schedule 1, item 50, page 15 (line 14) to 16 (line 8), omit the item.

(17)  Schedule 1, item 51, page 16 (lines 9-10), omit the item.

(18)  Schedule 1, item 52, page 16 (lines 11-12), omit the item.

(19)  Schedule 1 item 61, page 17 (lines 24-27), omit the item.

(22)  Schedule 1, item 66, (page 18 (lines 19-20), omit the item.

These amendments and a subsequent set that I will be moving make the necessary changes to restore transparency to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and enhance the electoral process to improve its ability to deliver the best representative democracy possible rather than the best democracy that money can buy.

Amendments (1) to (5), (16), (19) and (22) will retain the status quo with regard to prisoner voting. I spoke in opposition to the disenfranchisement of prisoners on three separate occasions in the last parliament and I reiterate my opposition now. The right to vote, to have a say in who governs the country and even, at a state level, who runs the prisons, is a basic human right and as a right is not something that should be taken away by politicians. This was also the view of a past joint standing committee of this parliament that adopted a recommendation that all prisoners, except those convicted of treason, be granted the right to vote. Nothing has changed my view. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am finding it very difficult to concentrate with the noise.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask members if they would afford the member for Calare some courtesy and let him be heard.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not support the measures with regard to prisoner voting that eventually passed the parliament that only those serving sentences over three years be excluded from the roll. This was a reduction from the original five years in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. As the reduction to three years was passed by both houses, I am willing to retain that compromise in my amendments to remove the government’s total exclusion of anyone serving a custodial sentence, regardless of whether it is two months or two years, from the electoral roll and to retain the status quo. This policy is designed to do nothing more than further enhance the electorate’s perception that the government is tough on crime and criminals. Sure, but it is too tough, I would believe, in excluding all prisoners from a right to a vote, which should in any humane society be part of a rehabilitation process.

I said before in this place that some people commit crimes and are not jailed but retain the right to vote. Some are jailed and later found to be innocent. The blanket disenfranchisement ignores the reality of our justice system, which is that it is imperfect and fallible. From my experience in Calare, unless we pay particular attention to the rehabilitation of prisoners and offer them rights which they can appreciate as rights—indeed, their participation in a fundamental process in our society—it will only further cement behaviour which will continue to be antisocial and which will exacerbate crime. It will certainly have a more negative outcome in the long run.

I draw the House’s attention to the Indigenous prisoner population, which is a huge percentage—up to 30 per cent—of the prison population in Bathurst jail. Indigenous prisoners make up 22 per cent of our prison population, which is up from 14.2 per cent in 1992. This statistic is screaming out at us. Here is something that needs to be attended to. Having spent time with those incarcerated in Kirkconnell, Bathurst and Lithgow jails, I believe many of those people recognise they have made a mistake and many of them would want the right to have a say as part of the rehabilitation process and not one that encourages recidivism.

In a similar vein my amendments (6) to (15), (17) and (18) will retain the status quo in respect of the closure of the roll seven days after the election writ is issued. This would avoid the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of Australians who will enrol or change their enrolment. Much of this has been covered in other debate. I would only say that it is a better process to have students and young people in my electorate engage when the election is called and then take part in that election than to have them take no part whatever in the process. (Extension of time granted)

Finally, as the AEC has consistently stated in past inquiries into electoral matters, the commission is not of the view that so-called last-minute enrolments overburden it nor present a risk to the integrity of the roll. There has not been support for early closure of the roll from the AEC. In this debate it has been suggested that in the Senate inquiry into the bill the commissioner reversed this long-held opinion. I have looked at the Hansard of the inquiry and I am satisfied that, far from supporting the early closure of the roll, the current commissioner merely gave his opinion on the impact the early closure of the roll would have on the commission and its workload. I seek support for these amendments and I will be seeking a division. I will be moving subsequent amendments.

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support the amendments. With respect to amendments (1) to (5), (16), (19) and (22), the government remains firmly of the view that people who commit offences against society sufficient to warrant a full-time prison term should not be entitled to elect the leaders of the society which makes the laws that they have disregarded. This will bring Australia into line with many other Western countries, including the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Belgium and the majority of states in the United States of America.

I dealt with amendments (6) to (15) and (17) to (18) in great detail in my summing up. The member for Calare probably did not listen to my summing up and to the facts about the early closure of the roll. To save some time, for the reasons that I set out in very clear terms in my speech summing up the debate we oppose these amendments.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to facilitate this debate to get it over by 7.30. I really object to the insinuation that I was not listening to the debate. I made it clear in my second reading contribution, if the minister read it.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. The minister has concluded. I call the member for—

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, you are the second Deputy Speaker today to forget my electorate. I am concerned.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry about that.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important today to make it very clear that this package of amendments proposed by the member for Calare to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 will be supported by the opposition. They particularly relate to the issue of prisoners and the issue of the closure of the roll and seek to maintain the systems that currently stand.

Our position on the bill as a whole is very clear. The bill stinks. It is a rank piece of legislation. It is designed to corrupt the electoral system in a manner to benefit the conservatives. Have no doubt about that. But let us be very clear about these amendments. The comments of the Special Minister of State in closing off the second reading debate were that this is all about the Labor Party—this is all about what Graham Richardson did so long ago. That is what it is about. Basically the position is: ‘We are acting altruistically, honestly and in the best interests of the public, but it is in response to your evil—the things that you did so many years ago,’ which I might add did not in fact work that well.

Let us also be clear about what some of the experts have said. There is one expert that I want to quote. That expert said, ‘There is little evidence of fraud in our electoral roll.’ Who said that? I will tell you who that was. It was Senator Eric Abetz, the previous Special Minister of State. We all know this minister has form on these sorts of issues because we all know where he came from before he landed in Eden-Monaro. It was the Northern Territory. We all know what happened in the Northern Territory. We all know what he was accused of in the Northern Territory. We all know what happened there. It is good to have so many members of the coalition sitting here behind me supporting me while the minister is sitting over there with all his mates.

The fact of the matter is that it is not just us. During the committee hearing into this legislation, a series of experts raised concerns about this proposal. Professor Brian Costar summed it up pretty well. He said:

I think that this conspiracy theory ... that there is out there a vast army of villains who want to take advantage of every nook and cranny of the law to sign up phantom voters ... to rort the system is not based on evidence.

But it was not just him. What about the Australian Electoral Commission? The Australian Electoral Commission has on a number of occasions had an opinion and a view about this issue. On this occasion, they did not. The position taken by the current Electoral Commissioner is one of: ‘If the government does that, then we shall obey.’

But previous Australian Electoral Commissions, even those under Andy Becker—and we all know his links historically—had a very clear position. In 2000, in a submission to an inquiry into the integrity of the electoral roll, the AEC stated:

... the AEC expects the rolls to be less accurate because there will be less time for existing electors to correct their enrolments and for new enrolments to be received.

Their position has been consistently that closing the roll off early will have an impact. So it is not just me; it is not just us. It has been the view of the Electoral Commission on a number of occasions over many years. It is the view of Professor Brian Costar, an independent expert on this matter. But it is not just them either. Let us go to what Antony Green from the ABC said in relation to the JSCEM inquiry into the 2004 election:

If suddenly the election is called two or three months early, people will not have regularised their enrolment. You will cut young people off, as the numbers show ...

That will be the result. The minister made the point that the electoral survey shows that young people vote conservative. You can question that survey—and I have not got long enough to do that because I have got only five minutes—but that is not the point. The point is that you will disenfranchise people.

There is the argument that it is okay, that it is a matter of obeying the law. Let us look at AWB for a second. If Minister Downer had read and understood the cables, if he had done his job, maybe we would not have the problem we have now with AWB. Lots of people out there in the community only fix these sorts of things when they know they have to. It is all right saying that the roll is going to close when elections are called, but unless you have a fixed date approach—which the government reject—the circumstances are that you will not get people acting in this fashion. (Time expired)

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

I am glad that the member for Eden-Monaro is sitting at the table, because I lived in the Northern Territory when he was there, involved with the CLP. He scarpered. He knows that he is now endorsing a piece of legislation, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005, which will effectively disenfranchise literally thousands of Territorians. Indigenous Australians who live in remote communities and Indigenous Australians who are in jail, as the member for Calare has said, will be now disenfranchised because of this legislation.

Young Aboriginal Territorians turning 18 may not be aware of their responsibilities as electors and citizens of this country when the next election is called. How will they have knowledge that an election has been called? Most will not have a radio. They certainly will not have access to a newspaper. They will not be in a position to register on the roll. That is partly because of decisions taken by the first Howard government in 1996 to get the Aboriginal voter education unit out of the Electoral Commission. That is what they did. It was a shameful exercise to take away the capacity of the Electoral Commission to provide information and educational material to Indigenous Australians which demonstrated their responsibilities as voters and put them on the roll. This legislation is fundamentally antidemocratic. There is no need to close the roll on the day the election is called. What is the legitimate reason?

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Nairn interjecting

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

Oh, when the writ is issued!

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have a look at the bill. You don’t even know the bill.

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

When the member for Eden-Monaro closes his trap for just a short while he will understand the implications of this legislation. The CLP have been trounced time and time again by blackfellas in the bush. That is what this legislation is about—crude politics. The government will try and disenfranchise anyone who they do not believe votes for them. Why are they doing it to people in the jails? Because they know that historically people in jail who get to vote do not vote for them. Why are they doing it to Indigenous Australians? Because they know historically Indigenous Australians do not vote for them.

We should not be under any illusion as to what this is about. This is a crude political exercise to try and maximise the Liberal Party vote by disenfranchising Australians. This legislation seeks to disenfranchise people who have a right to be enrolled so that they do not get to register and do not get to vote on polling day. The government should be ashamed of itself.

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

I rise to support the amendments to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 that have been moved by the member for Calare. The retention of prisoners’ right to vote is essential. I think I am one of the few members of this House who has appeared on behalf of members of the prison population. I was a criminal lawyer before I went into parliament. The statistics show that a large proportion of the prison population is Indigenous and a large proportion of the prison population is also serving short-term sentences. I believe that the current law is balanced: anyone who is serving imprisonment for three years or more is precluded.

What the parliament should be about is enfranchising people, not disenfranchising them. This is where we come to the second amendment in relation to early closure of the roll. In my speech in the second reading debate, I labelled that together with the idea of more identification for people who are claiming provisional votes. I regard those provisions as the ‘hanging chad’ provisions—provisions that are there to knock people out. We are not talking about one or two voters here. We know that, if this provision had been in place at the last election, 70,000 electors would have been disenfranchised. Quite frankly, I do not care whether electors are Labor, Liberal or Callithumpian. We as a parliament should not be moving to disenfranchise a massive number of electors; we should be encouraging people to enrol.

It is a fact that young people are a bit slack. The minister would know there are research papers by the Australian Electoral Commission that show that 18-year-olds are the least enrolled. Not until voters are 25 years of age, according to the Australian Electoral Commission statistics, do we get the balance right on enrolment. Only among voters aged 25 or older is the same percentage enrolling. But the figures show that among those aged 18 to 25 the enrolment is not as large. We are not talking about phantom enrollees; we are talking about real people—many thousands of people.

The minister claims that at the last election more young people voted for the Liberal Party than voted for the Labor Party. Well, so what! Whether or not they voted for the Labor Party in bigger numbers should not be the criterion. The criterion should be: has the government demonstrated massive fraud requiring this provision which is going to disenfranchise tens of thousands of people? Has the government shown massive fraud as a basis for this coming in? No. There have been assertions, there has been prejudice, there has been suspicion and there have been unsubstantiated allegations made.

I served on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters from 1990 to 1996 and for subsequent short terms. For the whole of my time on that committee, I was guided by a philosophy of empowering people—making sure that legitimate people can get on the roll, have a vote and elect the government of their choice. It is all about retaining integrity in the system. This legislation will not bring a higher level of integrity to the system. In close elections we will end up with a Florida-like situation in which there will be a question mark over the vote because people have been disenfranchised. Florida was a blight on the American voting system. The provision being brought in here is going to be a blight on the Australian electoral system, and I believe the government is quite wrong in wanting to bring it in. I believe that, down the track, it is going to create disenchantment with our electoral system.

Whether we like it or not, younger people do have a problem getting on the roll. We should be giving them every encouragement to get on the roll. We should be giving them the slack that is currently in the Electoral Act. The provision in the Electoral Act is not corrupt; it is a savings provision. It gives them a safety net of seven days from when an election is called to get on the roll. I think it is a disgrace. (Time expired)

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have served on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters since I was elected to this parliament in 1998. I went to all the hearings around Australia as part of the 2004 investigations. I patiently went to remote parts of Australia with a large group, mostly members of the government. This parliament should know that at none of those hearings was evidence presented that there was substantial fraud of the Australian electoral roll. In fact, electoral officer after electoral officer, and academic expert after academic expert, testified that there is no substantial fraud of the Australian electoral system. The changes being contemplated by the government in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 are not based on any evidence.

Let me remind the House that between 1990 and 2001 there were six election events—five elections and one referendum. At each of those election events, 12 million Australians voted. So, over those six election events, 72 million people voted. During that period of time—the same time that 72 million people voted—the Australian Electoral Commission discovered 71 cases of proven electoral fraud. So why on earth are we changing a system that works? Hundreds of thousands of Australians will be affected as a result of evidence that one in a million Australians who voted in those six election events was proven to be involved in electoral fraud.

It is this legislation that is an absolute fraud. In a compulsory voting system we have an obligation to the Australian people to make sure that as many of them as possible have the right to vote—and that is exactly what this legislation is sabotaging. I cannot speak more strongly on this. This legislation is an abrogation of the rights of the Australian people. Younger people in particular will be affected by this, as the member for Banks has said.

No evidence of fraud was adduced to the committee at all of the hearings I was at in 2004. The current minister was not there, nor was the current Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There was no evidence produced at months of inquiry that proved there was any substantial electoral fraud that affected any division in Australia, let alone a national election result. This legislation is based solely on what the Soviets used to call ‘salami tactics’. Slice by slice, the Liberal Party are trying to slice off voters who may support the opposition—hopefully, the next government—at the next election. The government want to slice off young people. They want to slice off Aboriginal people. They want to slice off all people who may not have enrolled perfectly or do not have a drivers licence, and they want to slice off elderly people—all the categories we raised in the inquiry. This legislation is an absolute disgrace to Australian democracy.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few seconds that remain before we go to the adjournment, while knowing that the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 will be considered in further detail tomorrow, I would like to make a couple of points in addition to those that I made before. I make it very clear to the Australian people that this is about the Liberal Party of Australia implementing an agenda; it is not about an equitable and fair electoral system. I mentioned before the opinions of a number of experts and I want members to know that when we are back in here tomorrow I will be mentioning quite a few more that show that all this is about is the conservatives trying to rort the system to give them the opportunity to try to put in place ongoing domination of the electoral system as a result of changes to the detriment of young people and other disadvantaged groups in this country.

Debate interrupted.