Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010 contains five schedules which will, firstly, restore the close of rolls period to seven days after the issue of the writ for an election; secondly, repeal the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity before their votes are admitted to scrutiny; thirdly, enable prepoll votes cast in the electors’ home divisions to be cast and counted as ordinary votes wherever practicable; fourthly, allow the Australian Electoral Commission to process enrolment transactions outside the division in which the person is enrolling and enable electors to update their enrolment details electronically; and, finally, restrict the number of candidates that can be endorsed by a political party in each division.

Schedule 1 deals with amendments relating to the close of rolls. The amendments in this bill that relate to the closing of rolls seven days after the writs are issued will be opposed by the coalition. The previous government, in line with longstanding policy, moved to protect the integrity of the roll and prevent fraudulent enrolments by reducing the time period between the calling of an election and the closing of rolls. The closure of the rolls seven days after the issue of a writ is a significant threat to the integrity of the electoral roll. The coalition considers that the existing arrangements ensure that the electoral roll contains a high degree of accuracy and integrity, and we are concerned that the extra time period allows for a return to a system which permits calculated fraudulent enrolments to take place.

The coalition believes a return to the previous system of seven days will serve to discourage citizens from making or maintaining their enrolment during the ordinary course of the year, as they will have the opportunity to delay such action until an election is called. It also increases the opportunity for selective fraudulent enrolment. This policy was reaffirmed by the coalition senators’ minority report in the June 2009 Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. This minority report was of course ignored by the government in this legislation. The government is seeking to open a loophole whereby people are able to enrol fraudulently in electorates to provide political advantage to a particular candidate or political party. I will talk a little bit more about that in a moment.

Schedule 2 amendments relate to evidence of identity for provisional votes. The amendments relating to the evidence for provisional votes will also be opposed by the coalition. The previous government, in line with longstanding policy, moved to prevent fraudulent voting by people impersonating other voters. The previous government did this by requiring that people who claim a provisional vote in an election be required to produce evidence of their true identity and their enrolled address either on polling day or in the week following polling day. This was an important protection against fraudulent voting, something I will touch on again in a moment. People who live at a location for 21 days are, by law, required to enrol at that address. If they do not do so, they are breaking the law. It s true that they may not be aware of any changes to boundaries, which could affect which electorate they reside in; however, they are aware of the fact that they have changed address.

Effectively, the changes proposed by the government mean there is no consequence for breaching the Electoral Act. The benefits of correctly enrolling are reduced to nothing and there is no disincentive for any person who fails to correctly enrol, leading to a situation where the whole basis for the AEC’s Continuous Roll Update program is severely undermined. Any proposal to weaken the rules related to proof of identity for provisional votes should be opposed, because they may encourage people to ignore the necessity of maintaining a correct enrolment and because the proposed amendment makes fraudulent voting easier. This policy was also reaffirmed in the coalition senators’ minority report which I referred to a little bit earlier.

Schedule 3 contains amendments relating to prepoll voting. The coalition will support the amendments relating to prepoll voting. At the current time there is a significant and unnecessary administrative burden on the AEC for processing prepoll votes cast within the elector’s own division. At the current time, these votes are treated as declaration votes and must go through an administrative checking procedure in the weeks following polling day. The government’s proposal seeks to treat these votes as ordinary votes; although, electors who wish to cast them will still be required to fill out and sign a declaration asserting the elector’s need to cast such a vote. The net effect of this proposal has no ill consequences for either the integrity or the role of polling day practices. This is because the elector’s name will be immediately crossed off the roll on polling day, and notification of who has cast prepoll votes is circulated to each polling booth. In many ways this system actually has more integrity than the issuance of provisional votes on polling day. An additional benefit will be that these prepoll votes will now be able to be counted on the night, leading to an earlier, more accurate result of the vote. This is especially useful, given that prepoll levels are usually quite a significant percentage of the total vote.

The amendments in schedule 4 concerning the processing of enrolments will also be supported by the coalition. This is an administrative amendment which allows the AEC to transfer workload relating to the processing of enrolments between different divisional returning officers. There are strong efficiency arguments to be made in allowing DROs to farm out work to other officers, particularly during high levels of demand or sickness of staff, or if staff leave requirements leave a DRO short-staffed for a period and they are unable to manage the unexpected workload. This schedule also allows for people who are already on the roll to update their details electronically—and this is a welcome development. There is no provision for new enrolments to be lodged electronically. People who wish to use electronic update will have to provide confirming details such as a drivers licence, passport or citizenship number, which already form the basis of identity checks used by the AEC.

Amendments relating to nomination of candidates are in schedule 5. The amendment relating to the restriction on the number of nomination of candidates by a party will be supported by the coalition. At the Bradfield by-election in 2010, the Christian Democratic Party endorsed nine candidates to contest the seat. That was a political mistake and not just a procedural flaw. It is understood that this was a deliberate tactic to try to drive up the informal vote amongst those voters with poor English and numeracy skills. Previous AEC research has demonstrated that the more candidates there are in an electoral contest the greater the likelihood of informality. This is especially the case in electorates with a high non-English speaking background population. Further analysis indicated that most of the informality related to a failure to correctly number all boxes on the ballot paper.

So we have taken a very reasonable approach in opposing the first two initiatives and accepting and supporting the last three initiatives. It reminds me of the fact that you cannot always trust the Labor Party when it comes to electoral reform. There is a history of a number of people in this place in relation to electoral matters and alleged electoral rorts. Quite obviously, the recent appointment by Senator Conroy of Mike Kaiser to a $450,000 unadvertised, uncontested job reminded me of Mr Kaiser’s engagement in electoral fraud in Queensland. The Canberra Times reported on 11 January 2001:

In the Shepherdson inquiry yesterday, Mr Kaiser admitted his signature appeared on a fraudulent enrolment form.

It goes on to say that he signed the form but claimed to have no memory of doing so. It also said:

A third Queensland Labor back-bencher fell on his sword yesterday after admitting to electoral fraud …

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for North Sydney, resume your seat. The Attorney-General has a point of order.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the attention of the House and my friend to the issue of relevance to the debate and I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, to keep an eye on that issue.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member for North Sydney has the call. We are debating electoral matters. I thought the member was quite relevant to the bill before the House.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a valiant effort from the Attorney-General. So there was electoral fraud. Mr Kaiser admitted at the Shepherdson inquiry that he was engaged in a fraudulent enrolment form. How is he rewarded? Within a short period of time of Labor coming into government, Mr Kaiser gets a $450,000 a year job. He actually earns more than the Prime Minister as a PR consultant for the National Broadband Network, and the job was organised by his good friend and fellow right-wing colleague, Senator Conroy. But I needed to refresh my memory about the Shepherdson inquiry—

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

Mr Danby interjecting

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was an investigation into electoral fraud, as the member for Melbourne Ports will remember. And that reminded me of the relationship between Mike Kaiser and the now Treasurer, Wayne Swan. And again, thanks to the Canberra Times for this quote—although we did dig a little deeper—25 November 2000:

Mr Swan, with Mr Kaiser, has been mentioned in relation to alleged ‘war stories’ told by senior Australian Workers Union faction figures at a camp for faction workers. Mr Swan was said to have boasted that he once had about a dozen people listed as living in his house in the 1980s, while Mr Kaiser was said to have talked of having nine people registered as living in his small flat.

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

That’s a proven allegation, isn’t it? In a newspaper—a press cutting!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the interesting thing about this relates to the role of the AWU. And Peter Beattie, whom the Canberra Times described as ‘beleaguered Queensland Premier Peter Beattie’, had to come back from Japan to deal with this issue. Perhaps the Shepherdson inquiry should be left to another day, if necessary. But that is not the Treasurer’s only engagement. He had to be stood down by the then Leader of the Opposition some years ago—

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just draw to my friend’s attention that if he wants to make—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That if my friend wants to make allegations against another member of this House, he is required to do so by the appropriate form. That is my point of order.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill before us is on electoral matters and the integrity of rolls. I take the Attorney-General’s point in relation to personal attacks, and I would ask the member for North Sydney to keep his remarks confined to the bill and to be aware of the Attorney-General’s comments in relation to personal allegations against members.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Far be it for me to engage in personal slurs, in the same format as used by the Treasurer. Far be it for me to go down that path. I am noting allegations of electoral fraud and an inquiry into electoral fraud that dealt with allegations involving the now Treasurer. I am simply reminding the House in the context of this bill of those events. I am not going into it a great deal. That will be, if necessary—and I hope it is not—for another day. I am reminding the House and the Australian people of the form of the now Treasurer—that is all.

I remind them of an Australian Federal Police investigation into a cash for preferences wrongdoing back in 2001. An Australian Federal Police spokesman said that Mr Swan, who had been stood down from Labor’s frontbench during the investigation, was cleared of allegations that he had paid the Australian Democrats money in a preference deal in 1996. The Federal Police spokesman said:

There will be no further action taken in relation to Wayne Swan. I can’t say there is no case to answer, but no further action will be taken.

The Treasurer is very keen on firing bullets under the cover of parliament—making allegations and, slurring people. He spends a lot of time doing that. But he has history and, when it comes to electoral matters and matters of integrity, there are allegations that have been placed on the record—that have been cleared.

When it comes to playing with the electoral rolls and when it comes to electoral reform, the Labor Party has form. Therefore, we come to this debate very sceptical of the role of the Treasurer, the role of the Labor Party, the links with Mike Kaiser, the history of the Shepherdson inquiry and a range of other events that colour our impressions of whether the government is truly determined to do something about electoral and political fraud.

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

Many times you rise and participate in discussions in this House that are usually politically partisan and a bit ho-hum for the average member of the public. But, when I approached this legislation and the measures introduced by this government, I do so with a great deal of passion and enthusiasm. The crusading, democratic ethos of then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam is one of the factors that brought me into politics. If people were truly aware of the extent of the winding back by the previous government of democratic rights in Australia through many of the rorts that were introduced at the last election, they would understand the importance of this bill, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. When the measures that I am going to speak about were introduced by the previous government, the then Labor opposition said that we would overturn the Howard government’s undemocratic changes to our electoral laws, and I think that Senators Ludwig and Faulkner, having brought forward this bill, are doing exactly what we committed to at the last election.

I have had a long history on this issue, being a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for most of the time since I was elected 11 years ago. In October 2005, when the majority report of JSCEM foreshadowed then government changes to the act, I presented the opposition’s minority report, which made it clear that we would oppose the changes and we would overturn them when we were returned to government. In December 2005, the Howard government brought in its bill, which was based on the majority report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The key elements of the Liberal bill were: a reduction in the period of time Australians had to enrol to vote and to update their details on the electoral roll, ensuring that many people would lose their right to vote; and the introduction of a new proof of identity requirement, making it more difficult for people to enrol, to change their enrolment details or to case a provisional vote.

The situation before us is not entirely due to those changes but, given Australia’s growing population, it is very alarming from a democratic point of view that the electoral commissioner reported recently at a public hearing that 1.39 million Australians are not enrolled. That really should have been the focus of government made over the last few years, rather than allowing the process of taking more Australians off the roll. In May 2006 I spoke several times against the Howard government’s then bill, and I said:

These changes represent the reversal of more than 150 years of democratic progress in Australia, progress towards a more democratic, inclusive and transparent electoral system. Australia has always been an innovator, indeed a world leader, in electoral reform and democratic processes. As a result Australia has one of the most open electoral systems in the world, which has the highest reputation for integrity and transparency. Now, for the first time in memory, an Australian government is going to wind back some of these features of our electoral system for no good reason other than for short-term partisan advantage.

09:59:26

That is what I said about the previous Liberal government’s measures which were put in place for the last election. I felt very strongly about this attack on Australia’s democratic system and I still do. My strong feelings came from an understanding of how precious and fragile democracy and freedom are. All through the terrible events of the 20th century, when much of the world suffered under fascist and communist dictatorships, Australia stood as a beacon of democracy and freedom. Millions of people have come here to Australia to find peace, freedom and democracy. They found a democratic system that, while not perfect, was one of the best in the world.

Australia has always been a pioneer in the development of advanced systems of electoral democracy. The secret ballot was pioneered in Victoria in the 1850s and became known worldwide as the ‘Victorian’ ballot. All adult males had the right to vote in the Australian colonies by the 1860s, long before any European country. They were among the first places where women won the right to vote. In the 1920s we introduced compulsory enrolment and then compulsory voting, making it clear that voting was a civic duty in which all citizens were expected to take part. In 1974 we lowered the voting age to 18. The Hawke government introduced public funding for political parties and the compulsory disclosure of campaign donations when they were elected in 1983.

That is why, in my view, it was shocking to see the previous government introducing its regressive legislation in 2005. This legislation made it harder for people to vote and easier for people to donate money without disclosure. There is no doubt at all that the effect of this legislation was to take large numbers of people off the electoral roll and to prevent large numbers of people who were on the roll actually casting their vote at the 2007 federal election.

This was confirmed by the very thorough report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the conduct of the 2007 federal election, which was presented to parliament in August 2009 by my good friend the honourable member for Banks. The report showed that the Howard changes had the effect of disenfranchising tens of thousands of Australian citizens at the 2007 election, which is exactly what we predicted would happen. At least 50,000 people we know of—on the basis of past experience—would have enrolled in the traditional seven-day period of grace after the calling of the last election, but they were prevented from doing so. Many more were disenfranchised by being taken off the roll by the AEC when they changed their address and were then deterred from re-enrolling by the more onerous enrolment procedures.

In 2004, 77,000 people were added to the rolls after the calling of the election because they had been incorrectly removed. In 2007, only 1,400 of these people were able to get back on the rolls on election day. These changes were entirely due to the legislation of the previous government. My estimate is that about 100,000 Australians were prevented from enrolling or voting by the changes made by the previous government. I also believe that a majority, perhaps a large majority, of those disenfranchised people came from social groups more likely to vote Labor: first time voters, new citizens, Indigenous Australians, people with poor English or low literacy skills, itinerant workers and even homeless people. There was the belief that the Australian government did this in order to disenfranchise their fellow Australians because they thought that these social groups were more likely to vote for the then opposition.

The then Liberal government justified these measures by what they called the ‘protection of the integrity of the electoral roll’. This was the thrust of their report in 2005 and the thrust of their speeches in support of the bill in 2006. In fact, there was no evidence of any significant degree of electoral fraud in Australian federal elections and there was no merit to the coalition’s claims that these regressive changes were required to protect the integrity of the roll. These claims were nothing but a fig leaf for the coalition’s naked self-interest.

Let me just recount that between 1990 and 2001 there were six electoral events. The previous speaker, the member for North Sydney, was talking so knowledgeably about the Shepherdson inquiry but he could not mention how many people were involved because his argument would have been shamed by the fact that there were so few. Between 1990 and 2001 there were six electoral events at which 12 million Australians voted at each opportunity. Six times 12 million is 72 million. In that entire period the Electoral Commission showed that there were 72 proven cases of electoral fraud—one per million. Why would you change the legislation affecting all Australians’ right to vote on the basis of one fraud per million, especially in the context of democratic countries like the United States who had such problems with their voting systems at presidential elections and which actually led to a dispute over a presidential election count.

The AEC, the independent statutory authority charged with safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system and whose commissioner was appointed by the Howard government, said in October 2001:

It has been concluded by every parliamentary and judicial inquiry into the conduct of federal elections, since the AEC was established as an independent statutory authority in 1984, that there has been no widespread and organised attempt to defraud the federal electoral system … and that the level of fraudulent enrolment and voting is not sufficient to have overturned the result in any Division in Australia.

This view was shared by Emeritus Professor Colin Hughes, a highly respected former electoral commissioner, who wrote in 2005:

… the thorough review of the electoral roll conducted in 2002 by the Australian National Audit Office … concluded ‘that, overall, the Australian electoral roll is one of high integrity, and can be relied on for electoral purposes’. There are adequate safeguards in the current electoral laws and procedures to deal with any … attempts at fraud without stripping the vote from hundreds of thousands of citizens.

The inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 2007 election received a submission from the AEC which said:

… it can be clearly stated, in relation to false identities, that there has never been any evidence of widespread or organised enrolment fraud in Australia.

These comments go to prove the correctness of the point made by the veteran election analyst Malcolm Mackerras, a former researcher for the Liberal Party, when he said that the changes in the Howard legislation were motivated solely by ‘a relentless pursuit of the electoral interests of the Liberal Party’. As it turned out, these changes were not sufficient to save the Howard government from defeat at the last election, but had the election been closer their manipulation of the electoral system might have changed the results. As I noted earlier, a significant number of people lost their right to vote because they were unable to enrol either because they missed the cut-off date or because they did not have photo ID when they went to enrol. Others lost their votes when they tried to cast provisional votes but were unable to do so because they did not have photo ID.

The report into the 2007 election found that more than 27,000 provisional votes were rejected because they did not comply with the new requirements. The number of formal provisional votes fell from 112,000 in 2004 to 42,000 in 2007. A disproportionate number of these would have been two-party preferred Labor voters. My view is that enough Labor voters were disenfranchised to allow the coalition to win at least four seats—Bowman, Dickson, McEwen and Swan—these seats would otherwise not have been lost by Labor at the 2007 election. This is not just my view. The joint standing committee heard evidence from Professor Brian Costar, of Swinburne University, one of Australia’s most respected political scientists. Professor Costar testified that these changes to the electoral roll had a partisan effect, namely that it took votes away from the Labor Party. His estimate was that this change cost Labor three seats in the House of Representatives. Professor Costar told the committee:

I think a case can be made that it changed the result … We know that provisional voters, because of their choice, are not a minor image of the electorate as a whole. They tend to be more Labor and Green than they are Liberal, National, or anything else. My view about it is that it is a demographic explanation. There is nothing partisan about it; that is just how it is.

The bill we are discussing today will reverse these retrograde changes and will go a long way towards restoring the integrity of our electoral system. The bill implements the main amendments of the joint standing committee’s report. As one of the government members on the committee, I am pleased to be able to play a part today in laying the foundations for this bill. The main provisions of this bill are: to restore the close of rolls period to seven days after the issue of the writ for an election, to repeal the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity before their votes are admitted to scrutiny, to modernise enrolment processes to enable electors to update their enrolment details electronically, to allow the AEC to manage its workload more efficiently by enabling enrolment transactions to be processed outside the division for which the person is enrolling, and to enable prepoll votes cast in an elector’s ‘home’ division to be cast and counted as ordinary votes wherever practicable.

The bill also contains one additional measure relating to the number of candidates that can be endorsed by a political party in a single seat. This provision was made necessary by the antics of Fred Nile’s party at the 2009 Bradfield by-election. I am sure that members opposite share in our interest in including this. By running nine different candidates in the by-election, Mr Nile pushed the informal vote up and deprived hundreds of people of their formal vote. There is no legitimate reason why a party should be allowed to flood the ballot paper with unelectable candidates. It amounts to sabotage of the political process.

This bill is the culmination of a long process, and it is very welcome. I hope it will be passed by both houses in time to have effect at the election later this year. There is no doubt that the government has a mandate for this bill, and I hope that the opposition will not try to make their bad record worse by blocking it in the Senate. If they do, a re-elected Labor government will bring it back next year, when I believe we will have a Senate that is much more reflective of the wishes of the Australian people. Either way, sooner or later, we will reverse the regressive changes inflicted on our democracy by the previous government.

The main task of any Australian democrat looking at the Australian electoral system is to get those 1.39 million Australians who are not enrolled back on the electoral roll. We have a compulsory voting system. We are honour bound to try to get those people back on the electoral roll. This legislation handles the people who were, very unjustly and for partisan political purposes, taken off the electoral roll by the previous government. This is a first step in ensuring that Australia remains at the forefront of democratic processes and transparency in the international community.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.