Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we were last here debating the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010 I made reference to the rather fanciful comments of the member for O’Connor. Those allegations about massive corruption in Australian political life owe more to parallels with US bossism, whether it was Huey Long, Doc Prendergast or Joseph Curran, and more to the films of Edward G Robinson et cetera and gangland Chicago than they do to the realities of this country. The truth is that we have a system in this country which has an unparalleled independent Australian Electoral Commission. We have heard in the course of the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters their view of some of the reforms that are being introduced in this bill.

The United States can have gerrymanders administered by state administrations, whether Democrat or Republican. They can basically just gerrymander within that state to their own advantage. I was a member of a study group that was invited by the US government back in the early nineties and when we went to Nancy Pelosi’s office we were shocked to see a system which depended on election day on volunteers to run the polling booths rather than public servants. Older people are increasingly unable to do that. That is the kind of system that we do not have in Australia. As I say, we have an independent commission.

For many of those opposite what this issue is really about is the internal divisions on the conservative side of politics over compulsory voting. The reality is that deep down much of their agenda is to minimise participation in the political process of this country. There are those, predominantly in South Australia, who in the past have driven the need to get rid of compulsory voting. They cannot accomplish this because the National Party in particular has historically had a different view and there are elements in the Liberal Party who support compulsory voting. They cannot get away with that, so what we have is a pattern of undermining the credibility of the political system in this country. They are constantly coming up with the most exaggerated, extreme possibilities such as, ‘If this happened and that occurred, and maybe this also occurred and someone said this to another person, maybe this particular seat in the Australian parliament may be affected’.

When we look at the concerns those opposite have, there is not much credibility in the figures. Between 1990 and 2001 there were 70 cases of false enrolment. The truth is that multiple voting has been shown to be accidental, a person with an intellectual disability or an error of electoral officers rather than something perpetrated through fraud. The member for O’Connor was talking about people having trucks full of false clothes, moustaches et cetera running around the suburbs of Australia, turning up at polling booths and coming in and impersonating people. The truth, as I said the last time we were here, is that political parties in this country are finding it increasingly difficult to staff polling booths. Apart from branch stacking and factional fights, both parties find it very difficult to motivate the electorate to participate in our political life.

Obviously that is not just related to political parties. It is a reality of many community organisations in our society, from the Girl Guides to the Country Women’s Association to the local Rotary to the football clubs and to the tuck shops. These groups find it very difficult to involve people. The reality was put in a recent article in the London Review of Books by Peter Mair titled ‘The Parliamentary Peloton’ on 25 February this year. His description of political life in Britain is the reality to a large extent in this country:

The mainstream parties meanwhile struggle to gather the resources necessary to compete effectively for office. Parties can no longer rely on the efforts of eminent democrats, those activists who once persuaded voters to turn out on election day. Instead, they rely on professionals, experts, pollsters, marketing gurus and consultants, all of whom cost money and all of whose advice costs money to implement. Parties are now capital intensive, rather than labour intensive. But lacking activist labour, they have problems raising capital so they find themselves turning to a relatively small number of donors. The donors then lean on the party and the party, being organisationally weak and short of members, gives way.

He further commented—and obviously we know it is a system which is not compulsory:

Turnouts at elections have never been so low, while support for mavericks, populists and other ostensibly anti-party politicians has never been so high. Party membership has dropped significantly. Back in the 1960s when comparable cross-national data was first collected, more than 10 per cent of registered voters in European countries were members of a political party. Today, the figure is less than five per cent.

And if we delete Cyprus and Austria, which are characterised by high membership, it would be four per cent. This is the reality. For people to come in here and put forward some theory that the political parties have got the time on election day to organise this level of corruption and fraud, and to have people out there getting around, putting people on false enrolments, is preposterous. What this really is about is trying to reduce participation and trying to make sure that those groups that are most likely to be eliminated, those groups most likely to vote and those groups most likely to be disenfranchised are targeted.

If you look at page 148 of the committee’s report, for instance, it is interesting to read about the 10 most Indigenous seats in this country compared to the national situation. The average number of provisional votes in the 10 most Indigenous seats in this country is 1.76 per cent of the total vote and the national average is 1.23 per cent. In other words, it is half a per cent higher on average. It is not just one or two seats; it is not an aberration. In the most Indigenous seats in this country the level of provisional voting is half a per cent greater. It is a very significant difference. That is the kind of person that is targeted by many of the conservatives’ provisions. The attempt to make voting more difficult and the attempt to limit voting times for registration are all things essentially aimed at minimising participation. The most sorry example of this was in the 2004 US presidential elections in Florida where secretaries of state Kathleen Harris and Sandra Mortham managed to eliminate one per cent of the electorate. The member for Mitchell, who is very much a protagonist of this style of politics, smiles in agreement at their success in eliminating one per cent of the electorate and three per cent of the Afro-American vote by very duplicitous practices.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was there. It is nonsense, absolute nonsense.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolute nonsense, he says. As I say, these are measures that the government now attempts to introduce so as to ensure that people have the maximum possibility of exercising their role. In the 1920s, in a very swift debate in this parliament, both sides of politics essentially agreed to introduce compulsory voting. This is a society which has very liberal rules with regard to citizenship and permanent residency and which essentially has emphasised participation by saying to people, ‘We want you to be part of our political system; we want you to participate; we want you to be a citizen. We don’t want you to be marginalised in a corner, hostile and ambivalent.’ That is the spirit in which this legislation has been introduced—to make sure that the time people have to change their enrolment is reasonable and that it is not a situation in which people who, for a variety of reasons, do not have the opportunity to get their enrolment changed are basically denied participation in the political process.

What they do over there under the guise of some false concern about corruption and manipulation is an attempt to basically make it difficult for people. It is not only with regard to the enrolment period, and it is not only with regard to transferring during the election process; it is basically with regard to a broader philosophy of making it difficult for people to turn out on election day and for them to cast their votes. They are putting on restrictions and putting on requirements and making it more difficult. That is the agenda because, essentially, based on socioeconomic circumstances, they believe that the majority of people who would be less inclined to vote and more affected by these kinds of restrictions are those who will not vote for their side of politics. The figures in the report indicate just how massive the problem can be. If the last election had been called a day or two differently, or if they had closed on 15 October, only 17,208 of the electoral transactions numbering 279,469 would have occurred. It was a sorry enough figure anyway, but for the day on which it was called it would have been far worse.

I quote from the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The report said:

The committee can see no valid reason why it should be necessary to continue with close of rolls arrangements that serve to disenfranchise electors and that require unsustainable levels of funding to be expended in order to partly mitigate their effect.

In conclusion, this measure is not about protecting corruption, and it is not about basically ensuring which side of politics can win the seats; it is about people participating in our democratic processes, in a system which has, historically, had that fundamental emphasis.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. I want to start by rejecting many of the comments of the member for Reid in his typically bleak fashion. He sought to paint a picture of the electoral roll and the agenda of the coalition in relation to the measures proposed by the government. In that bleak assessment perhaps the main criticism I would have of the member for Reid and his arguments was that he suggested that somehow our opposition to many of these changes, particularly the voter identification and other scheduled changes proposed in the bill, was that we were seeking to disenfranchise people, or not have a group of people vote. Of course, the significant problem with the member for Reid’s contention in this regard and with the Labor Party’s contention in this regard is that the argument that more voters were disenfranchised under the coalition’s changes to voter identification in the seven-day grace period is erroneous. The facts tell a different story.

In 2004, under the previous system where there was a seven-day grace period, there were 169,000 people who missed out on the enrolment deadline. But, of course, in 2007, at the last election under the coalition’s changed three-day grace period, there were only 100,000 people who missed out. These are not estimates from us; these are the AEC’s figures. So this argument that somehow this is an attempt to disenfranchise a body of people is of course erroneous and the member for Reid knows it.

The changes proposed by the government today seek to reinstate the seven-day grace period, and this is an argument that I oppose, because the integrity of the electoral roll is something that is paramount to the functioning of our democracy. It is the member for Reid’s assessment that everything is fine and rosy with the electoral roll—that it is fine to contend in this parliament that there is no need to be rigorous in our ongoing examination of the roll and of the system that we have of voting in Australia and that, somehow, just by encouraging everybody to participate, participate, participate, we have a benevolent democracy where everything will end up just fine. Of course, the reality is very different. That is, we do have to have a strong system in place. We have to have a system of ensuring that the right people are casting votes in the right way and that people do not attempt to manipulate our electoral system. We do have examples of people attempting to manipulate the electoral system in recent history. Perhaps you should not take it from me—I know the member for Reid and I have a history in relation to politics which is different—but noted communist author Frank Hardy wrote a book called The Stolen Election: Australia 1987. Maybe the member for Reid would care to read what he had to say about the 1987 election and the potential for manipulation in that election. Frank Hardy is the famous author of Power without Glory. In that work he suggests that there is a propensity in Australia for people to attempt to manipulate the electoral system at various selections. When you consider many of the results in marginal seats or seats where elections are very tight and come down to a handful of votes one way or another, I think it is proper that the parliament ought to remove any opportunities for fraud and seek to constantly improve the system we have in place to ensure that the opportunity for fraud is minimised.

I will oppose schedule 2 and the amendment relating to the evidence of identity for provisional votes. The previous government, in line with long-standing policy, moved to prevent fraudulent voting and impersonations by requiring that people who claim a provisional vote in an election produce evidence of their true identity and enrolled address either on polling day or in the week following polling day. I think that is a proper mechanism. People who live at a location for 21 days are, by law, required to enrol and, if they do not, they are breaking the law. But, as we know, the reality is that many people in our community choose not to enrol within that 21-day period. It is true that they may not be aware of any changes to boundaries which could affect the electorate in which they now reside. However, people are aware of the fact that they have changed address, so they are making a choice in relation to that—that is, not to re-enrol or not to be on the electoral roll—they simply forget or there are other reasons for them not to re-enrol.

However, effectively the changes that are being proposed in schedule 2 mean that 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. That leads to a situation where the whole basis for the continuous roll update, which was something brought in by the coalition in 1999, is severely undermined.

Any proposal to weaken the rules in relation to the identification requirements for provisional voters should be opposed. It should be opposed because it gives the impression that if you do not obey the law and seek to put yourself on the roll, which all responsible citizens should do, somehow you should be rewarded for not maintaining correct enrolment for a substantial period of time. That is a very important argument. The integrity of the roll does matter. While we have a compulsory voting system we should discourage people from choosing not to be on the electoral roll.

I note the member for Reid challenged the coalition, saying that our opposition to the bill is really part of some sort of secret agenda of ours to bring in voluntary voting, which I find a weak argument in relation to this legislation. I can publicly put on the record that I do have a view that voluntary voting is something that we should look at as a nation. We ought to have a free society where people are allowed to choose whether or not they want to vote. Currently in Australia we only compel people to attend a ballot box and mark off their name on election day. There is no such thing as forced voting. You cannot force a person to vote. We simply force attendance at polling booths, and many people register their votes in an informal way or take another way of not voting. We simply force attendance, and some people suggest that is a good thing. I do not violently object to that system; however, if we are continually to push to have a freer society, voluntary voting is a mechanism we should look at. Indeed, looking at the United Kingdom and the United States, there are many good arguments for voluntary voting. However, that is not the agenda of the coalition today and it certainly is not the topic we are presented with in the legislation before us.

Many of the proposals here weaken the integrity of the Electoral Act. The member for Reid said that he was not aware of any examples or any matters which caused him to be concerned about our current electoral system, which I again find to be an unusual contention. The HS Chapman Society was set up in 1996, meets regularly in Sydney and is a society with which I have had something to do. Other members of this place quite regularly have interaction with the HS Chapman Society. That society was purely set up to examine and look at our electoral system. Included in their objectives are:

• To promote public understanding of the … electoral systems
• To monitor the operation of the Australian electoral system and … recommend changes to the law and practice of elections
• To compare the Australian … systems with those of other democratic countries

That is a fine body of objectives for any organisation. It is good to see that we have private citizens taking an interest in the electoral roll and the operation of our electoral system who are prepared to meet in their own time, examine proposals for improvements and make recommendations. Indeed, along the way they have certainly highlighted a number of cases where there have been concerns with the roll. The member for Reid said there have only been 71 instances of people multiple voting or conducting voting fraud. Considering that many of these elections have very close results, I think that is a reason why we should have strong electoral provisions and should constantly look at ways to improve them.

Identification is an important issue. I still find it a very odd situation that if you go to the bank you are required to have 100 points of ID, if you want a passport you have to prove your identity and if you want to hire a video at a video store you have to prove your identity with a licence, but there is no real identification required at a polling booth on election day. However, that is a different matter.

There are some amendments within this legislation that we can support, and the coalition has provided its support for schedules 3, 4 and 5. In relation to the proposed Electoral Act provision that a political party cannot nominate multiple candidates, that is a valid and worthy amendment to the act. It has grown out of recent examples, particularly in the Bradfield by-election, where a political party sought to, I think, deliberately manipulate the electoral process by nominating multiple candidates. The Christian Democratic Party nominated nine candidates for the Bradfield by-election. There has been plenty of speculation about the motives behind that, but it is the case that the AEC records over many elections and many years that the more candidates you have the higher the informal rate. I note from the member for Bradfield’s contribution earlier in this debate that there was an unusually high rate of informal voting in the Bradfield by-election, which should be of great concern to all members in this place. So it is easy for us to support such an amendment. A political party ought not to deliberately seek to manipulate the electoral system in that fashion. Therefore, that is a good amendment.

Schedules 3 and 4 relate to provisional voters and are certainly an improvement in administration for the AEC. Provisional voters certainly caused a lot of difficulty for the AEC and scrutineers alike in terms of the time it took for administrative checking in the weeks following polling day. The proposal to treat them as ordinary voters is a worthy one and something that we support.

The bill before us has some worthy provisions. However, schedules 1 and 2, as they relate to particularly the close of the rolls but also the changes to identification for provisional voters, are changes that I cannot support. The electoral roll is an enormously important mechanism and the administration of it is something that we should constantly be seeking to tighten. The government’s proposals certainly weaken the administration of the roll. As we saw in 2004 and 2007, the coalition’s tightening of the three-day and seven-day periods was not of any impact upon the number of people that missed out on voting; in fact it was reduced. I am happy to support schedules 3, 4 and 5, noting the great concerns that the coalition has with the weakening of the electoral roll.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. I wish to speak in support of a number of aspects of the bill but I begin by making the obvious observation: there is an old expression ‘horses for courses’ and I must say that I am just a little bit surprised that the Liberal Party would send in to bat on this important issue the member for Mitchell, who has hardly distinguished himself as a paragon of virtue and integrity when it comes to the democratic processes both externally but also internally within his party. I think his efforts to branch stack are held in wide acclaim by those who admire these matters. I do not consider myself to be one that does admire those activities. Certainly, there is a vast array of material on the public record that demonstrates that the member for Mitchell is coming to this debate with less than clean hands.

It is through the prism of his contribution that the contribution of those opposite should be viewed. Be very sceptical when the Liberal Party come forward with amendments to electoral laws without any valid basis for doing so. That is what happened back in 2006. In particular I refer to the close of rolls and the changes that were then put in place that moved the close of rolls date from being the evening of the date that the writ was issued from where it was previously, which was seven days after the issue of the writ. Be very sceptical when the Liberal Party come forward with proposals, as they did back then, because there was no valid argument for reducing the period available for people to update their enrolment or to put themselves on the roll so that they could exercise their democratic right and vote in that election.

We hear these arguments about how there is a lack of integrity and how there is rorting that is going on. We hear people quoting from books that are something in the nature of fiction in order to try and justify the very spurious argument that there is widespread rorting going on; therefore, we should deny people the opportunity to cast a valid vote because they may not have been on the roll as at the evening on which the writ was issued. The member for Mitchell articulates the argument that many others on his side have argued—that is, if we look at the figures at the last election and we look at the figures of the election before, there was not really a material difference in the number of people who were left off the roll. If that is the argument then I would ask the member for Mitchell and all of those members opposite: what is the harm in allowing that extra time so that people who are not on the roll may be able to regularise their enrolment details so that they can then exercise a vote? In a country that has such a rich tradition in valuing our democratic tradition, I do not see why we would be trying to put additional barriers in front of individuals that might be simply wishing to do what I think everyone in this place would expect all citizens to do, and that is to exercise their democratic duty and to vote in an election.

If there were evidence of rorting, not even widespread rorting, then there may be some argument to try and limit the ability of individuals to get on the roll. I would also raise the point that if someone were looking to rort enrolments on the electoral roll, they do not have to wait until an election is called in order to do that. Clearly, no-one in this place is going to condone that sort of activity but it seems to me a fairly specious argument to come forward and say, ‘We’re going to prematurely close the rolls so that all that rorting won’t occur.’ Everybody knows that 2010 is an election year. If people were looking to enrol people illegally and to engage in skulduggery, there is nothing to stop them from going out and doing it today. What is the magic about the evening of the issuing of writs as opposed to seven days later?

Let us not forget that we live in a political system where we actually do not know at the federal level when the next election is going to be down to the day. We do not know that and we will not know that until the Prime Minister goes off to seek the Governor-General’s concurrence with the date. That means individuals in our community wanting to maintain their enrolment or to enrol for the first time may be left in a situation where they are stranded having been caught short not knowing that the Prime Minister was about to go to Yarralumla and not being able to get their act together in the handful of days between that and when the writ is issued.

It seems to me that it pays, in a country that values its democratic traditions, to try and expand opportunities for people to participate in the democratic process. There is no greater exercise of one’s democratic rights than to cast a vote on election day. The argument that has not been put by those on the other side is why it is that closing the roll on the night of the issue of the writs is going to maintain any greater integrity than doing it seven days later. The other side of the coin, put very simply, is that clearly there will be people who will not be able to get their details updated within that short period who will benefit from the extra seven days. So what is the evil that we are seeking to eliminate here that we would go to the extent to deny individuals the opportunity to vote in an election? It seems to me that it is only as a result of the fact that those on the other side somehow believe that they get some political advantage out of this.

I know that there have been those on the other side on occasions who have suggested that younger voters are more likely to vote for the Labor Party than to vote for the coalition. I would suggest that that is not always the case, but I know it is a suggestion that has been made by people in the past. When you look at the percentage of people that missed out on updating their details on the roll, they are predominantly young people. If that is the argument, let those on the other side be fair dinkum enough to come forward to make that point.

I am surprised that the member for Mitchell and his associates on the other side have sought to make integrity on polling day and integrity in election campaigns the issue in this debate. I note that the particular measures that are contained within this bill are in large part recommendations coming out of the inquiry into the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There is an interesting chapter within the report that details some of the goings-on, some of the shenanigans, that occurred in the electorate of Lindsay, the seat that I represent, at the last election. I am disappointed that at this stage we have not been able to take sufficient action to try and correct what I think is a real shortcoming in the Commonwealth Electoral Act and that is the very small, the very meagre, penalties that are applicable to the sorts of acts that we saw carried out in the Lindsay electorate at the last election.

I know that that is a recommendation coming out of this report, and I hope that that is dealt with in the near future, but I think that these matters are just as relevant to this discussion as they will be to that discussion when it comes before this place. Those on the other side seek to come forward and suggest that somehow disenfranchising individuals by limiting their ability to get themselves on the roll is driven by this mass rorting, this lack of integrity in the way in which other parties conduct themselves during and in the lead-up to election campaigns when we have on display evidence of what I think were disgusting activities engaged in for the Liberal Party Lindsay campaign. One of the issues that concerns me is that an article published on 9 December 2007 in the Sunday Telegraph relayed some comments on the involvement of the Leader of the Opposition in the management of the Lindsay leaflet scandal under the headline ‘Abbot blamed for flyers fallout’:

According to senior Liberal sources, it was Mr Abbott who advised former Liberal MP for Lindsay Jackie Kelly to defend the leaflet as a Chaser-style stunt.

Her remarks sparked further outrage, and Mr Howard was forced to publicly repudiate her.

I guess we can see that the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, at least had the decency and good sense to distance himself from these activities. It seems as though that was not entirely the case for the Leader of the Opposition, as he now is.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Lindsay has made a very serious aspersion on the character of the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask that you bring him back to order and request him to withdraw the outrageous statement he just made.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the parliament, would the member for Lindsay please withdraw.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the parliament, and for the great respect I have for the Deputy Speaker and the office that you hold, I was quoting an article and the comment that followed the quote merely reinforced what had already been quoted from the article. To the extent that I have said something that offends someone because it is not true, then I certainly withdraw that. I wish to continue to quote the article:

According to senior Liberals, it was Mr Abbott who suggested the Chaser defence during a strategy conference early on that day the story broke.

His advice was rejected on the grounds that the leaflet was deeply offensive and could not be dismissed as a prank.

I would have thought that that was an entirely reasonable conclusion for one to draw in those circumstances, notwithstanding the position at least asserted to be Mr Abbott’s position so far as this article is concerned. The article goes on to say that when Mr Abbott was asked about this he said about Jackie Kelly:

“Jackie’s a great mate of mine, and the Warringah Conference (Mr Abbott’s fund-raising arm) bankrolled to the Lindsay campaign.”

In the context of the discussion about integrity in democratic processes, I am disturbed by that comment because one of the unanswered questions not only through the various criminal proceedings that were undertaken in relation to this matter but also in the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into these matters was where these leaflets came from. Who printed these leaflets? I know that there is a lot of speculation going around, and there has been for the last couple of years, that they may well have been printed using taxpayers’ dollars. To one of those that has seen these leaflets, it does appear that they were produced using something along the lines of a Risograph machine. Were any taxpayer dollars used to fund these pamphlets? If taxpayer dollars were not used, then I think, given the quote I have just read out that Mr Abbott’s fundraising arm bankrolled the campaign in Lindsay, it begs the question whether there was any connection between the funds that were provided by Mr Abbott and his electoral conference and the conduct that was the subject of these criminal prosecutions—that is, the Lindsay leaflet scandal. I think this is a question that should be answered. It is a question that I have been asking for the last two years, but I think it is of even greater importance not just in the context of the current debate about integrity and democratic processes but also now that the member for Warringah is the Leader of the Opposition.

These are unanswered questions. I would be horrified if public dollars—taxpayer dollars—were used to print or produce this material—I think we all would be. But if it was not produced using taxpayer dollars then I think it is incumbent upon Mr Abbott, after the disclosure that he made in this article that it was his electoral conference that bankrolled the Lindsay campaign, to come forward—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Lindsay should refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title, and not by his name. But, more importantly, the member for Lindsay is skating very close to making very serious allegations against the Leader of the Opposition which, of course, are disorderly. He ought to withdraw them and he ought to be brought back to the bill.

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

Order! The member for Lindsay will use appropriate parliamentary names.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes—the Leader of the Opposition who, of course, was the member for Warringah back at the time. It does raise the question of who produced this material and what resources were used to produce that material. Those questions have not been answered. What we do know is that the pamphlet was produced and distributed by Liberal Party operatives in the Lindsay area. We do know by the Leader of the Opposition’s own admission that his electorate conference bankrolled the Lindsay campaign, but we do not know whether there is a connection between the two.

I think it is a legitimate question for me to ask on behalf of the residents in my community, who the Liberal Party treated with such contempt in relation to this issue at the last election. I think it is reasonable for me to come forward and to ask for the Leader of the Opposition to come forward and to disassociate himself and the funds that he and his electoral conference provided to the Lindsay campaign from those activities which I think that all fair and reasonable minded Australians would see as one of the lowest acts in our democratic history. I think it is important that we do have confirmation from the Leader of the Opposition on that point.

I wish to support the bill in all other respects. There is one other aspect of the bill that I would like to comment on very briefly, and that is in relation to the administrative provisions that would allow for those votes cast as pre-poll votes within the district for which those votes related to be allowed to be counted on the evening of the election. The figures I have seen are that somewhere in the vicinity of 660,000 more votes would have been counted on election night at the last election had that arrangement been in place. It seems to me that it makes perfect sense that if those votes have been cast and if they are located in that particular district that they should be counted on the night so that not only do the candidates and the parties have a better idea of the result on the night but, most importantly, that the Australian people have the most timely indication of what the result is going to be because, obviously, it is on them and their future that the result has such a great impact. I wish to support the bill.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important that whenever an election is called, the government that is elected as a result of the counting of the votes is in fact the government elected by the Australian people. That is why the Liberal and National parties when in government, and now in opposition, have always sought laws which maintain, protect, encourage and enhance the integrity of the electoral roll.

There are five elements to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010, three of which the opposition is prepared to accept and two of which the opposition is not prepared to back under any circumstances. The five schedules will, firstly, restore the close of rolls period to seven days after the issue of a 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 pre-poll votes cast in an elector’s home division to be counted as ordinary votes whenever practicable; fourthly, allow the Australian Electoral Commission to process enrolment transactions outside the division for which the person is enrolling and enable electors to update their enrolment details electronically; and, fifthly, restrict the number of candidates which can be endorsed by a political party in each division.

The opposition strenuously opposes schedule 1 and schedule 2, but is prepared to support the amendments proposed as a result of schedules 3, 4 and 5. Consequently, I will focus my attention on the two schedules which the opposition is not, in any shape or form, prepared to accept.

It really is important, as I said at the outset, to guarantee that we have an election result which is what the people voted for. The amendments moved by the former government, when in office, sought to improve and maintain the integrity of the electoral system. There is no doubt that there is an ongoing obligation on the part of Australians to enrol to vote. It is an obligation under Australian law that when a person moves to a certain locality within a certain period of that move the person is required to register to vote either for the first time or to move his or her enrolment from the previously enrolled address.

I am someone who personally believes in voluntary voting. I think that it is quite wrong that in a democracy people can be jailed, as has happened in the past, for failing to vote. People are often fined, and if they do not pay the fine then they go off to jail for a default period. I see that as being the antithesis of democracy, and I think Australia is one of only two or three English-speaking countries throughout the world which has compulsory voting. I do, however, support the concept of compulsory enrolment. There is a requirement under the law of Australia that people who are eligible to do so enrol at the address where they are currently residing. I support that, and if people observed the law of Australia then they would be enrolled whenever an election was called.

This particular bill seeks to give people a window of opportunity of seven days after the issue of the writs for an election to get on the electoral roll or to amend enrolment arrangements. The difficulty with that, of course, is that it means that people who are ill intentioned are able to, using nom de plumes, lodge a multiplicity of enrolment applications and, because of the imminent arrival of the election date, the Australian Electoral Commission, which is highly professional, simply will not have the time to check out the bona fides of those people seeking to get on the electoral roll.

It would be very easy for someone in a marginal seat who wanted to rort the electoral roll to simply sit down with a few friends and think of a few hundred nom de plumes, post away the enrolment forms and get on the electoral roll in the period between the issue of the writs and seven days after. The Australian Electoral Commission, which would be flooded by these applications for enrolment, both genuine and nongenuine, simply would not have the manpower to process these applications, taking into account all of the checks and balances which ought to be applied.

So essentially what would happen is that these people would automatically go on the electoral roll, the election day would arrive, and these people—or their nom de plumes—would be able to vote. What could happen is that an army of people could be organised, particularly since the abolition of subdivisional voting. That is, subdivisions seem to have gone from federal divisions. Once when a person voted outside his or her subdivision it was necessary to cast an absentee vote. Now, of course, people in a division are able to go to any polling booth—and many divisions have anywhere between 30 and 90 polling booths—and cast a vote.

Unfortunately, given the laxness which the current government wants to introduce into the Electoral Act, it would make it much easier for the government to hold the large number of marginal seats which it holds as a result of the 2007 election. So it could be that this particular provision is designed to enhance the possibility of the return of the Rudd government at the election later this year. If this particular schedule becomes part of the law of Australia, it will be a green light to people to rort the electoral roll. It will be a green light for people to think of any number of nom de plumes and get them onto the electoral roll, because the Electoral Commission will simply not have the time to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. As a result, we will see a significant threat to the electoral roll of Australia and, of course, that increases the chances of the result as declared on polling day not representing what people actually voted for.

The present arrangements seem to be ones which are working well. The electoral roll presently contains a high degree of accuracy and integrity, and what the government is proposing will give the opportunity to the rorters to in effect reign supreme and will enable those who want to bring in fraudulent enrolments to do so with impunity. What will also happen, of course, if we return to the pre-existing arrangement that there will be a seven-day window of opportunity to enrol, is that citizens will become more relaxed about updating their particulars and maintaining their enrolment during the ordinary course of the year, as they will have the opportunity to delay any action until an election is called. This position was reaffirmed in the Liberal-Nationals senators’ minority report on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters committee inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto.

So we are not going to apologise in any way, shape or form for opposing schedule 1, dealing with amendments relating to the close of the rolls. We also oppose, as I indicated before, schedule 2, which relates to amendments concerning evidence of identity for provisional votes. The previous government, in our effort to make sure we had integrity of the electoral system, moved to stop fraudulent voting by persons impersonating other voters by requiring that people who claim a provisional vote at an election be required to produce evidence of their true identity and their enrolled address, either on polling day or, if they did not happen to have it on polling day, in the week following.

Who on earth, if he or she is a reasonable person, could object to that particular arrangement? Do the government really want anybody to come up and say that they are John Smith, Jane Doe or Joe Bloggs and claim a provisional vote in the name of that person and be able to do so without proving that he or she happens to be the person that he or she is claiming to be? I find it breathtakingly amazing that the government can stand up in the House and say that they support amendments of this nature—amendments which in effect will help to tear up the integrity of the Australian electoral roll.

There has been a great deal of cynicism in relation to politics, and we saw the One Nation and Pauline Hanson phenomenon. Ordinary, decent Australians felt disempowered from the political process. They felt disconnected from the political process. They felt that they could not have a say. They felt that politicians were not listening to them. They felt that the thought police were out there, stopping people from talking about issues that ought to be talked about. While I do not want to revisit the issues raised by Pauline Hanson in the parliament or in the media, I think it is important that we have a situation where people can have confidence in our electoral system. People will not move to extremist forces if they have confidence that the government of Australia is in fact the government that the majority of the people of Australia actually voted for.

That is why it is incumbent on all of us, regardless of where we happen to stand in the political spectrum, to strongly support laws that maintain the integrity of the electoral system. We only have to turn our television sets on any day of the week or any night of the year to see that in other parts of the world elections are contested and in some cases international election observers are called in because there is a worry by the people in the country that the electoral system does not have integrity. As an Australian, I am particularly proud that we do have in our electoral system more integrity than most other countries. I think that we can always continue to improve—to dot the i’s and cross the t’s in our Electoral Act. It is a work in progress, of constantly improving the accountability and integrity mechanisms.

The Howard government was prepared to do that. I find it incredibly concerning that the current government seems to want to roll back the clock to give, in effect, open season to the rorters in the same way that their open door policy and their demolition of our border protection policy has laid out the welcome mat for people smugglers. That is a matter that is increasingly of concern to the Australian people. Under the arrangement proposed by the government under schedule 2, there will effectively be no consequence for breaching the Electoral Act, the benefits of enrolling correctly will be reduced to nothing and there will be no disincentive for anyone who fails to correctly enrol, leading to a situation where the whole basis of the AEC’s continuous roll update program is severely undermined.

Any proposal such as that contained in the bill before the House—to weaken the rules relating to proof of identity for provisional votes—should be opposed because it rewards people who have been lazy and helps make fraudulent voting easier. Regardless of where we stand politically, any action by any government to bring in laws which encourage fraudulent voting ought to be strongly opposed. The policy of the former government was strongly reaffirmed in the opposition senators’ minority report of the Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto.

Frankly, Australia embraces an electoral philosophy that gives all eligible citizens a right to cast a vote on polling day. I believe they should have a right and not an obligation, but under our law they have a right ‘and’ an obligation. That means that they are required to exercise their democratic responsibility to help choose a government of the day. It does nothing to encourage confidence in the electoral system when we have a government which is prepared to introduce amendments to that electoral system which clearly militate against the integrity of the electoral roll. I have often said that Australia is the envy of nations throughout the world. The integrity of our electoral system is another attribute of this nation which enables us to strut the world stage and help encourage sound governance, good electoral practice and democracy around the world. If the amendments proposed by the government are brought into effect, it means that we as Australians will have slightly less ability to say that we are a country which has one of the best systems in the world, because we will have a government which is moving down the same road that many governments overseas have gone down. Those governments have, of course, been quite rightly criticised by the current and former governments in Australia.

It is very important that we know that people on the electoral roll are real Australians. We need to know that they are really entitled to being on the electoral roll. We need to cut back every opportunity for electoral fraud by reducing the chances for dodgy names to make it onto the electoral roll and by making sure that each voter casts only one vote. I know it has often been said in relation to those on the other side that it is important to vote early and often! I do not believe that most of our colleagues opposite would support that, because I believe that most of our colleagues on the government benches share our wish to have integrity in the electoral system. But their wish is totally at odds with the proposals contained in schedules 1 and 2 of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Nobody in the House wants cats, dogs and goldfish having their names registered on the electoral roll. It does not help the integrity of the electoral system. I am not suggesting we are going that far; however, what we are seeing is death by a thousand cuts. We are seeing the integrity of the electoral rolls slashed by schedules 1 and 2, currently before the chamber. If these two schedules become law then the government will be emboldened to further erode the integrity of the electoral system.

I believe that it is important that the government reconsider this matter. While many things separate the approaches of the government and the opposition to life and politics and our visions for the country, there are overriding principles which should bring us together as a country. Let’s face it: we are one of the oldest democracies in the world. Someone told me we are the sixth-oldest democracy in the world. We have freedom, stability and a way of life that makes us the envy of people throughout the world. We have an electoral system which, up until this bill, has been respected around the world. I am not saying we cannot make it better, but we should be moving in the direction of improving the integrity of our electoral system and not in the direction of shredding the integrity of our electoral system. So the amendments before the House are, in fact, extremely unhelpful. They undermine our capacity to stand at world fora with integrity. They undermine our capacity to be seen as paragons of best practice. They undermine our capacity to hold our heads high amongst the ranks of those who support democracy. I see the bill that is before the House as sad, because it is a first step in undermining the integrity of our electoral system. No doubt there are many countries in the world that have electoral systems with less integrity than our electoral system would have even if schedules 1 and 2 became part of the law, but this is a nail in the coffin. This is a first step towards tearing up the integrity of the Australian electoral system.

I see this particular change as bizarre, undesirable and just something that the government ought to reconsider, because our core values as a nation support the principles of integrity and electoral justice whereby when people vote for a government that is the government that is actually elected. I just believe that trying to force through the parliament these amendments contained in schedules 1 and 2 of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010 is an action which ought to be opposed. I think these amendments are retrograde. I think they are unacceptable. They will be repudiated by the people of Australia and they do no credit to this government. They do no credit to the electoral consensus in this country, which has sought to maintain a bipartisan sense of integrity in the electoral system. I oppose schedules 1 and 2, I support the other three schedules and I hope that the government will reconsider the retrograde, undesirable elements of the bill before the chamber.

Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add my very clear support to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. In doing so, I would like to focus particularly on the first four schedules of the bill that deal with amendments arising from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In doing so, I say to the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, and the other members of the opposition who have spoken on this legislation that the one point I do agree with them on is that Australia has a very proud democratic tradition and that our electoral process and the electoral institutions upon which our democracy is built have stood the test of time and demonstrate that we are one of the most progressive democratic countries and have a longstanding and proud tradition when it comes to democratic elections. But it is there that I part ways in terms of agreement because I actually believe that these amendments, rather than eroding the integrity of the electoral system, restore the integrity that was taken away by the changes that were made by the Howard government in 2006, particularly when looking at the issue around the closure of rolls.

I think it is important to note—and I suspect that everyone in this House would agree—that there unfortunately does appear to be a growing cynicism about and a level of disinterest in our electoral system. Whilst many suggest that perhaps it is our antics and behaviour in this House that contribute to people’s cynicism about the electoral process, it may well be the way that government sometimes takes the community for granted and makes decisions that do not have community and electoral support that allows voters to develop feelings of frustration with the process. But I actually believe the ability to give everyone in this country, every citizen who is of voting age, full and free access to the electoral system is the only way in which we can restore the support and the interest once again of voters in this country. I believe that in fact the amendments that were introduced and the laws that were changed in 2006 helped fuel this disinterest by making it harder for people to enrol to vote and to make their way through the electoral system. Therefore, whilst there may be a perception about other political decisions that affected their disinterest, I believe that those changes were the cement that prevented people from feeling fully engaged in the electoral process.

What is important is that once you start to disenfranchise ordinary people and discourage their participation in the electoral system you only increase the influence of elites, of powerful lobby groups and of certain sectional interests within our community that start to dominate the political debate within this country and influence governments and their decisions. It goes fundamentally to the principle of democracy—a principle that was fought for long and hard by many of the founders of the Labor Party but which I think is shared by those who support all political parties in this country—and that is the right to vote.

But we must remember that that principle must also go with true representation. The right to vote and the support for democratically elected parliaments can only have a strong grounding in a representative parliament if all people within a community are entitled to vote and have easy access to the electoral system. We cannot have a truly democratic parliament if it is not representative, and we cannot have a representative parliament if certain sections of our community are excluded from voting and from the electoral process. That is why I believe that the first two schedules in particular—those which are the source of contention—are the most significant in this particular debate. I am very pleased that Senator Ludwig has brought these amendments to the parliament and I am very pleased that he has the support of the government to introduce these amendments to see the removal of the change to the close-of-rolls period and to open up the opportunity for people who would be provisional voters to participate in the electoral process.

The first schedule, as I said, restores the close-of-rolls period. The changes that were made in 2006 meant that rolls closed at eight o’clock on the night that the writs were issued. This was a significant change because it disenfranchised quite a number of people. It disenfranchised people who might not necessarily contribute to the parliamentary or democratic process in any way other than by simply exercising their vote. Unfortunately, not everybody in this country is a political animal. They do not stay glued to the news, The 7.30 Report, Lateline, A Current Affair, 60 Minutes or all of the other media that endlessly discuss politics day in and day out like we do.

Often, people are only reminded of their need to enrol or the need to change their enrolment because they hear of an election being announced. That is not a reason to disenfranchise them from the electoral process. In fact, it means that if we do not support these amendments, there will be a number of those people—key people within the community—who will be excluded. The current estimate is that there are now around 1.4 million people who are not on the electoral roll. Two-thirds of those people are aged between 18 and 39. If we are going to get young people involved in the political process and if we are going to maintain the integrity and strength of our democratic institutions from here well into the future, we must get people engaged in the electoral process as soon as possible. That begins by casting a vote. It begins by the rite of passage when you are 18 of walking into a polling booth and making a choice about the person who you wish to represent you in the parliament. It is an important part. We hope that as a result of casting that vote many people, particularly young people, will become further engaged in the democratic process and will become more actively involved in parliamentary and political debates, whether it is through their workplaces, through their field of study or whatever. But it begins with the right to vote and it begins with the exercising of that right to vote. That is why this amendment is so important.

I have been advised that in 2007 it was estimated that more than 50,000 people were prevented from enrolling because of the change in the close of rolls. It is actually quite significant that that number of people were excluded from the electoral process because they were not a 24/7 political animal and because they only get switched on by key events—and often the calling of an election is a key event. It does not mean that their vote is not important, that their contribution is not important and that they should not be given the right to participate. The second change that is proposed in this bill is regarding the rules around provisional voters. Apparently around 27,000 voters were rejected in 2007 because they did not turn up with the proof of identity that was required in order to cast their vote under the previous government’s amendment. This was a change that was only made a few years ago. The integrity of our electoral system over the past 100 years prior to that had not seen major upheavals or major rorting of the system. All that change did was, once again, exclude a further 27,000 voters from exercising their democratic right to vote. When you put those two figures together you start to talk about a significant section of the Australian community. When you consider the number of people who sit in this House on very, very slim margins, you realise that the exclusion of those people could have actually changed results in a number of key marginal seats on both sides of the House. That is when we start to talk about the importance of including everybody in the electoral process and giving them as much access and opportunity to exercise their right to vote.

The other thing I am particularly concerned about, and one that I would really like to support in these particular amendments, is the ability to change enrolment details electronically. This is a new initiative by the government. I am pleased to see the minister is embracing the digital age. Once again, if we are going to talk about having all Australians as part of the democratic community engaged in the electoral process, if we are going to get young people thinking about their democratic rights and exercising their right to vote, we have to start looking at ways in which we can use electronic media opportunities, such as via the net and other means, to encourage young people to participate. If this legislation is passed, people will be able to change their enrolment details electronically which therefore enables the electoral process on the day of voting to run much more smoothly because people will have been enrolled correctly. That will not only have a significant impact on increasing the number of people that exercise their right to vote, it will also encourage and demonstrate to people that this government wants to give them every opportunity to participate.

I am pleased that in order to enrol it is still a requirement that the form is filled out physically and that a signature is required, but once you are part of the system this government is not going to disenfranchise you simply because you moved house, you changed jobs, or for whatever reason you were no longer living where you were first enrolled. If we make it easier for people to change their enrolment details, we increase representation in this parliament because we increase the number of people who are exercising their democratic right to vote. On top of that, that particular amendment also makes it much easier for the Australian Electoral Commission to do its job and to do it properly. It ensures that our rolls are protected and accurate, that the information is properly processed and that the data is accurate at the beginning of the election cycle. These changes will not only involve more people and give them a greater right to participate, they will, importantly, encourage electronic amendments and make it much easier for people working within the electoral commission.

The other amendment to this bill that was put forward by the minister was to include a pre-poll vote as an ordinary vote on election night. I think that this is a very exciting and quite progressive initiative by the minister and it is one that I am more than happy to support. Once again, if we are talking about expanding the franchise and encouraging more people to be involved, we all know that in this day and age people are busy, that people work on weekends and that for religious reasons or a whole range of reasons people cannot vote on the particular day but want to vote within their electorate and want to make sure that their vote is counted. They exercise the option of pre-poll voting. In fact, apparently around 15 per cent of voters in the last election were pre-poll voters. This initiative means that those pre-poll votes that are cast in the electorate in which the voter resides or is enrolled will be counted on the night. They are not bundled up with all the other provisional votes to go through the fairly arduous bureaucracy that goes around envelopes, section votes and all of the things that can often delay the counting and the electoral process for days, or weeks in some cases, when it comes to election results. Those votes can be counted on the night.

I know that many people in this House will realise that their scrutineers on the day may not be so happy about having a few more votes to count but, if it means that in some of those very, very close results we can get a clearer outcome on the night because votes that have exactly the same status as those cast on the actual day can be counted that night, it could make for a much easier time in the days and weeks to come. In fact, it is estimated that, if those votes had been able to be counted on the night in the last election, there were some 667,000 votes that could have been counted that night. As we know, with the very close margins that occurred on both sides of the House in some cases, it could have meant that there was actually a result that night rather than an enormous amount of anxiety for candidates but also an enormous number of commitments having to be made by volunteers, scrutineers and the like as well as commission staff in the days afterwards, counting votes that really should have been counted on the night.

Those four schedules within this bill go to the heart of improving the integrity of our electoral system. They do not reduce the integrity. They do not open the system up to rorting. They do not in any way undermine or diminish the integrity of our electoral processes. Those amendments existed prior to 2006, as I have said. We had many general elections prior to that, and I am sure that many in this House who have been here a lot longer than me would know that the integrity of the system has never been questioned to the extent that required the draconian amendments that were designed to simply exclude, discourage and disenfranchise certain sections of the community rather than encourage people to participate in the democratic process.

If there are concerns about the integrity of an election, if there are concerns about the electoral process and if there are concerns of certain outcomes being the result of an abuse of the electoral system, there are mechanisms which deal with that. The underpinning of our democratic system is that there are legislative and other mechanisms that ensure the integrity of the electoral process. It is fundamental to our democratic process.

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

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will be heard in silence.

Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that the member opposite interjects with certain examples. Can I say that, as somebody who has been a member of the Australian Labor Party for many years, someone who has participated at the student union level and in many other activities which require elections, I am well aware of how fundamentally important it is to maintain the integrity of our electoral process. I am well aware of the abuses that may well be perpetrated in other countries.

If we did not have a strong democratic system in this country, if we did not have an electoral process that had stood the test of time over decades—indeed, well over 100 years—I would be the first one standing here to say that the system had to change. But I am sorry—I believe that the changes that were made in 2006 disenfranchised people in this community and discouraged them from exercising their democratic right to vote. I do not believe that those amendments were about fixing rorts in the electoral system. I do not believe that they were about protecting the integrity of the electoral system. I believe they were about excluding people. I believe they were about disenfranchising people. I believe that they were about discouraging and playing on the frustration of the Australian community when it comes to both the electoral process and their elected representatives, and I believe that these amendments will do much more to encourage people to participate democratically but will continue to maintain the integrity of our very great and strong democracy. I commend the bill to the House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I begin, can I pass an observation that the day after International Women’s Day I am the only male MP on the floor of the chamber at the moment. It is a great reflection on modern Australia that we have a minister at the table, a shadow minister being very boisterous and active, a deputy speaker in the chair, a speaker and—no offence to the member for Newcastle—a quorum holder here, but more power to you and more power to Australia because of it. It is a great reflection—

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

And Hansard.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and Hansard as well.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the point has been made.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great practical example of the day after International Women’s Day.

I understand that the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010 is the first part of a two-part reform process. This is part of structural change and I will focus on that in my comments tonight. It is also my understanding that we are expecting a financial bill with regard to electoral law reform. As I think any member in this place would attest, it is where the money flows that we have a great deal of interest in; therefore, I flag to everyone to keep a good, strong eye on the financials. I will make a couple of references tonight to this legislation being the first in a package of electoral law reform, both structural and financial. Whilst there is a level of comfort with elements of this piece of legislation, I think there are some deep concerns, not only personally but also within the community, about the financials and the way in which our democracy is being bought by too many people with an interest that is not the national interest but that may be a self-interest or a business interest. No-one in this debate speaks with clean hands with regard to the financial elements of what it takes to play in our democracy today.

I hope that we see this as genuine reform that upholds parliamentary democracy for the long term and that it is not about some short-term deal between the two major parties, in particular, in trying to wrestle for power and influence in Australia today. I start with the broad principle approach that all of this is a lot more important than quite often it is given credit for because it is the essential elements, the recipe, for what our parliamentary democracy is today. You only have to watch what is happening in a very interesting House of Commons debate at the moment, where we are seeing some push-back on behalf of backbenchers, both government and opposition, who are taking on the executive and taking on the philosophical questions around who really does run a parliament, who really is responsible and who really are the gatekeepers for democracy. I am pleased to see that debate in the House of Commons and I await the day when we have a similar debate here in Australia.

Having been here for only 16 months, I can say that there seem to be a great many norms that are accepted as part of, for example, House of Representatives practice, the way electoral business is conducted, the way rolls are kept and the way election funding is done. There seem to be an awful lot of norms accepted by the process and by Australia which are not necessarily contrary to but are certainly a long extension of some definitions of parliamentary democracy and certainly a long way from the original definitions around the very essence of the role of a parliamentary democracy. I know I am starting wide with some broad principles, but I think it is important when we are considering just how we structure a voting system and just how we allow MPs to raise and spend money. We do need to start wide with who we are and what we are and what we want to be.

I also say—it is probably unusual for an unaligned MP to say it after 16 months in this place—that I have yet to meet an MP who wants our democratic process to be the plaything of the rich. Certainly as individuals, there is a general belief that our democracy can be and should be better than that. Whether they be my unaligned colleagues or members of political parties, nobody wants the logical extension of that to be that the democratic process, the parliamentary process, is the play toy of political parties. I would hope there is a general belief and a general principle that it is inclusive of all-comers—members of political parties or not. I am not one to whack political parties around. There is a right and a role for association of members in this chamber to get things done but, vice versa, there is also a right and a role for those who choose to align based on issues. I would hope the process recognises that and the concerns I will express tonight that we are potentially just reaffirming some norms from previous systems that provide a substantial advantage to those who stand as candidates as members of political parties as compared to those who do not.

It is extremely concerning to hear conversations in this building about the next round of electoral reform that seems to be placing a greater ability for a member or a candidate standing for a political party to spend up to $300,000 per division, per electorate, compared to someone who is not a member of a political party, who looks like having their spending capped at $100,000. If that is the dirty deal that is being done behind the chair, I think that is a disgrace. I would hope anyone in this place, regardless of whether they are a member of a party or not, particularly the backbenchers from both sides, would give some push-back on this. As hard and as uncomfortable as it is to give up the advantage that money provides, I would hope that push-back comes from across the party lines and says, ‘No, in the long-term interests of our system of government, of our democracy, of our parliamentary democracy, it is in all our long-term interests that the amount raised and the amount spent and the way that is accounted for is fair and equitable to all.’ I do not think it is asking too much for unaligned or aligned members to have the same rules.

The example that I currently use is the September 2008 Lyne by-election. There was a period of, I think, 30 to 60 days during which all the candidates had to declare how much they raised and how much they spent in that Lyne by-election. Please do not take this as me having a crack at one political party. There was really only one major party that stood. I would suspect all would have been guilty if they had stood. However, the party in question and the individual involved as a candidate were able to declare ‘zero’ on their Lyne by-election return under the guise of some global annual return that came out early in February. None of us know the evidence trail—exactly what was raised for the Lyne electorate and what was spent in the Lyne electorate. It gets lost in the wash of this global figure. This is obviously to the advantage of the major parties involved who can argue a case that, ‘We are national parties; we therefore have national budgets, blah-de, blah-de, blah.’

There is, if not a legal imperative currently, certainly a moral imperative to allow a voter to know what was spent and to draw some conclusions or ask some questions as to why it was spent. To the credit of the Greens candidate in the Lyne by-election, she did exactly that—she declared locally. To the credit of Malcolm Turnbull, he did that in the Wentworth by-election—he declared what was raised locally and what was spent. There is an accountability and transparency trail wrapped up in that. I think that is the best we can do under a ‘buyer beware’ principle. I know, however, that there is still a great deal of frustration on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales because, 16 months after the event, an individual voter from that by-election can ask how much the major political party raised and spent but will still not get an answer.

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

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the National Party, so it is not the—

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

The member for Lyne indicated he wanted to speak on general principles. I ask him now to come to the bill.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am coming back to the structural. It is important because it is part of the package—it is financial and structural. This is leading in to the structural changes.

Again, the general principle I would hope we stand by is to be as inclusive at the ballot box as possible without losing the integrity of the rolls. I accept the position of the coalition, post-2006, about the importance of the integrity of the rolls, but I do not see this change, going back to the pre-2006 rules, as directly challenging that integrity. I would hope we have an inclusive process. I think 600,000 people turned up to cast a provisional vote at the 2007 general election and were unable to. That is unfortunate. I would hope that we would have some back processes, whether based on signatures or any other means or improvements in technology, which would allow provisional voting to be a valid way to vote. If that is the fundamental change that we are seeing, then I do not see that as a change which will cause the world to collapse if it goes through.

I understand that there are some changes to pre-poll voting as well. There are changes to provisions requiring that pre-polling places must now include compartments for voting—these are to fall within the same definition as compartments used for polling on election day—and must have a ballot box for votes. This is acceptable. Voters can vote at pre-polling places within a division or at other places declared to be used for pre-polling as long as the list of voters is delivered to that place. Essentially, the four or five points on pre-polling are, as I said, eminently sensible on the surface. Unless I hear otherwise from others, it all looks fair to me.

There are amendments relating to processing of enrolments. I think there are some interesting changes worthy of note, including allowing 17-year-olds to register in specified circumstances. There have been ongoing debates throughout my years in both state and federal politics on the rights and wrongs of various voting ages. I would be interested to see the detail of those specified circumstances in which 17-year-olds can now register.

The issue arising out of the Bradfield by-election is also worthy of note. That election saw an extraordinary effort by one smaller, but still very active, political party in standing nine candidates out of 22. Whilst the Christian Democratic Party certainly did not achieve an outstanding result as a consequence of that, I do also accept as sensible the change to restrict, at every election or by-election, each of the registered parties to standing one candidate and one candidate only. I think that is a fair and sensible change.

I understand there is very minimal impact financially. The cost estimate I have is for just over a million dollars, with savings over forward estimates of over $5 million. Most of those savings arise from more efficient pre-polling at the next couple of elections. I do not have a problem with this bill and I await the associated legislation with a great deal of interest. Whilst it is still in negotiation, I would encourage all members to reflect, and to reflect deeply, on whether this is a process about short-termism or long-termism. Is this process a scramble for power—a couple of major parties fighting over the title of ‘executive’—or are we, through these processes of electoral reform, building a better and more sustainable long-term parliamentary democracy in this country? I would ask for those negotiating on the next piece to keep a particular focus on that.

Whilst being fair through this legislation is uncomfortable and difficult, and I do not think anyone in this debate speaks with clean hands on any of this, I would hope quite sincerely that the focus is on those broader principles that I started with. Quite often they might sound boring and philosophical, but they are critical if we are building a better structure of detailed processes for provisional voting or pre-polling. Those broad principles do matter. In this case, without losing integrity, I accept that it is an inclusive process. When we get into the financials, I will have plenty more to say about some broad principles as well. I hope they are considered through the process of drafting that bill.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start by responding to some of the comments that the honourable member for Lyne just made. He posed the question: is it a scramble for power or is it long-term parliamentary democracy building? I have to say to him that it is not a scramble for power for people in this chamber, but it is about empowering the community, empowering the voters, empowering the people who have the right to vote and empowering the people who have the right to vote according to our Constitution. That is why I am speaking in strong support of these changes to the law. The honourable member for Lyne also says that nobody comes to this debate with clean hands. I certainly come to the debate with clean hands, as one does when one goes to equity. I am absolutely happy to say that.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will discuss that later!

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We certainly shall discuss that later, as the honourable member for Lyne says. It is an inclusive process, and it is about making sure that voters have every opportunity to exercise their constitutional right. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010 gives them that right. I rise to speak in strong support of the bill for the compelling reason that it enhances individuals’ ability to cast a vote. That is a basic but essential exercise, and also a responsibility in a democracy. A democracy is both product and process, and this is about the process of our democratic system. As lawmakers, as parliamentarians, we have an obligation to do anything that we can do to enhance it, to strengthen it—and that is what we are doing with this legislation.

When I studied law some years back I was surprised to find that our right to vote was in the Constitution. The Constitution is not something that we know very well in Australia, or indeed talk about. When you study law you at least get to study it for a year. It might not make you an expert, but you learn a little bit more than what is generally known in the community. We have a constitution that serves us relatively well, but it is not a constitution that is flush with individual liberties in a direct sense, in an expressive sense. We have this right to vote and this responsibility, something that we cherish in our community, and to find that it could be adulterated by law was a surprise to me. I thought it was something that was this right, this responsibility, and yet we have law and lawmakers who then adulterate it. That was how I saw it. I still see it within that framework. My personal view was, and remains, that if an individual Australian citizen turns up at the polling booth on election day to exercise that right, that civic responsibility, that person should be able to do that full stop and the law should not prevent them and put obstacles in their way; the law should facilitate their doing that. The changes in legislation I am speaking to tonight actually remove some barriers that were put in place in 2006, and they will assist people to exercise that right.

I know there are functional reasons—to prevent fraud and provide ease of administration, among others—as to why we have electoral laws. But functionality should not put barriers up to preclude a person from voting. We have to be mindful of that. I was surprised in 2006 when Mr Howard introduced the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I looked at it and I thought about it but I could not see any rationale for why we would have the issuing of the writs and then the roll would be closed off immediately and people would not have the seven days that they had prior to that change to get themselves on the roll. A lot of people do not go around thinking about the election and thinking about being on the roll. We do, because we are in the business of it. That is our job and that is what we do. A lot of people do not, and when the writs are issued that turns people’s minds to it. They realise they are not on the roll, and the AEC can do some work. The seven days lets people think about it and it gives them that bit of time to get on the roll. Yes, it is a responsibility, and it would be nice if everyone was on it beforehand, but they are not. That is not how we operate in human societies. To actually have the writs issued and then it was sudden death—there was no opportunity after, I think, eight o’clock that night—meant that people lost that opportunity. That did surprise me. I looked at it and I cannot say conclusively but I did not see any reason advanced that made sense.

The Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters provided some good information and recommendations. Many of the reports that have come from that committee have done their work well. They have provided good insights into the electoral process. The reports have provided good information and good recommendations, and this clearly shows the power of the parliamentary committee to work in the way it is intended to work. The report that I am referring to from the 2007 election came up with 53 recommendations. If I remember correctly, 45 were unanimous, and among those 53 were some good recommendations about the way we should approach the electoral law.

I turn to some specifics of the bill. A major and seminally important change is to section 155 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is a change that will cause the rolls to be closed for the purpose of an election seven days after the date of the writs. That means that we get to hear the announcement—and it is always the announcement we hear from the Prime Minister of the day—and then we hear that the writs have been issued and then people have seven days to get themselves registered. So there is a preparedness process. In a democratic system, that is an obligation that we have to make sure that people can do that. It gives effect also to recommendation 1 of the joint standing committee that I referred to.

There are a few other amendments. This legislation also gives effect to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. It brings the act into conformity with what I have just outlined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The way I read the bill—and I stand to be corrected—where we are amending the Electoral Act to allow better processes for voters et cetera in about six key areas, there is also a provision to amend the referendum act so that it is in conformity with the Electoral Act. I think it stands to reason that one has to do that. If we are exercising the referendum act, we have to have the same provisions in place, because we exercise a referendum act to cast our vote. The legislation picks up recommendation 45 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters giving consistency to the solid provisions.

Another key provision is the issue regarding the need to give proof of identity when casting provisional voting.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear ‘Hear, hear!’ from the other side. I think there is a lot of agreement on this particular issue, which is good to see, and I understand a lot of the recommendations from the joint standing committee do have bipartisan or multipartisan support. The provision is around the issue of ID and it is good to see that it will be picked up. I turn to that specifically. The Howard government’s Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 ensured that provisional voters were required to produce evidence of identity—a drivers licence et cetera—before their vote was counted. There were two issues arising from that. Some people do not have such ID, and if they did not have that evidence of identity on polling day then the elector had until usually the Friday after or five business days after the election to produce evidence of identity to the AEC. In the 2007 election, approximately 25 per cent of provisional voters were unable to produce evidence of identity on polling day, with approximately 20 per cent of electors then producing evidence after the election, meaning 27,000 votes were rejected at the preliminary scrutiny. That is 27,000 votes too many because if we are talking about—

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

They could have been fraudulent.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Mackellar says they could be fraudulent. There are ways of determining whether they are fraudulent. That was an absolute cut-off. If people turn up to exercise a provisional vote, they are entitled to cast it and then we have a process in place where they can have that checked. This bill implements a 2007 election commitment by the Australian Labor Party to repeal the provisional voting identity requirements. It also implements recommendation 2 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election. The committee, as I said before, is multipartisan. It picks up the committee’s recommendation. Yes, it was a commitment of the Australian Labor Party. That was absolutely clear and it was the right commitment and the right issue. A multipartisan committee of this parliament also recommended it. It picks it up as a safeguard, and we are talking here about issues of fraud. If the Divisional Returning Officer responsible for accepting the vote has reason to doubt that the signature that purports to be the elector’s signature is the signature of the elector, the DRO must check the signature against the most recent record of the elector’s signature that is available. There are safeguards, and we have to be mindful that our job is to allow people to vote and not preclude them, not put barriers up. It is always easy to put the barriers up, put the shutters up, make it difficult and make it hard, but we actually have to let people through and not push them out.

There are a few other amendments that are quite specific and relevant in this bill. I have dealt with the first two: restoring the close-of-the-rolls period to seven days after the issue of the writ for an election and repealing the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity before their votes are admitted for scrutiny. There are a few others. The bill is modernising the enrolment processes to enable electors to update their enrolment details electronically. I would like to make a few comments about that. If somebody moves to a different address, they have a responsibility to notify the AEC that they have done that and to keep all their details up to date. My experience is that a lot of people, including me, then get a notice from the AEC that says, ‘Please return this within 14 days.’ What happens after 14 days? If you do not return it within 14 days, does it become invalid? That is how it reads. A lot of people might get their mail after 14 days have already passed. Frequently I do. Somebody from my household got one a little while ago and, by the time they read it, 25 days had passed. What do they do? It says that they have to return it within 14 days.

I have always said how simple it would be if you could do that online. We live in a world that is electronic. Why can’t we update our details online? Why do we have to do this process—get a form, fill it in and send it off within 14 days? It frequently trips people up and further acts to disenfranchise them. That is what we are talking about. It is about franchisement, not disenfranchisement. So I was pleased to see that addressed in the bill. I am not 100 per cent clear how it will work in practice. I think it will be a work in progress, as something new that is being introduced, but it is a welcome provision and it is good to see that it is in there.

Another provision in the bill allows the AEC to manage its workload more efficiently by enabling the enrolment transactions to be processed outside the division for which the person is enrolling. That one speaks for itself. It just makes sense. It is probably one of those ones that are long overdue. I think that provision will be welcomed by the AEC.

Another provision in the bill is to do with prepolling. I am aware that most of us here in this place have had quite a deal of practical experience with scrutineering and prepolling. I forget what the figures are, but the number of people who cast their votes with prepoll is getting up around—

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fifteen per cent.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

15 per cent.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Five per cent.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Five per cent? I read 15 per cent. That is large. It is a significant amount of the community that are casting their votes in that way. If you have been scrutineering in a polling booth on an election night, you will know that prepoll votes normally do not get counted with the votes on that night—they go off and are counted elsewhere. That can slow down the count in seats. It is important—essential—in a democracy that we have the count done as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

The way I read this change is that the prepoll votes cast in an elector’s home division—and a lot of them are cast in home divisions—will be able to be counted as ordinary votes, wherever practicable. I imagine that most of them could be, just from my observation of it and my involvement. Those votes will be counted on the night or they will be counted very quickly, so there will not be that time lag. That means that the result can be known a lot quicker in a particular area. Some we know quickly and some we do not, for certain reasons. This is a very welcome change as well.

Another change in the bill restricts the number of candidates that can be endorsed by a political party in each division. Previous speakers have put it on the record that this came up with the recent by-election in Bradfield. I am sure it has been an issue before, but it was highlighted in Bradfield by the large number of candidates from a particular party. It is just good sense to make this change.

This bill is most welcome. It is a bill about inclusivity. It is bill about shoring up and strengthening our franchisement and removing what I see as some areas of disenfranchisement that came in with the 2006 amendments. I commend this bill to the House.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is effectively one between the two sides of the chamber arguing the issue of inclusiveness against the issue of integrity. I will go into the detail, but what this argument will turn upon is whether one or both or neither of these sides can make a case for either the integrity of the system or, in the government’s case, its inclusiveness—they often use the word ‘franchisement’. The government can only make the case for the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010 if they can demonstrate that, if the increased inclusiveness comes at the loss of integrity, that is a price worth paying. The opposition’s argument, particularly around schedules 1 and 2, is simply about integrity. In the end, if there is no integrity, there is no effective election. There have to be rules somewhere. We have to set a bar somewhere. In the Australian political system, it is well known that there already is the requirement upon Australians to maintain their enrolment details in their permanent place of residence, to cast a vote when an election is called and to fully extend their preferences to the candidates. That is written in the act.

So there is already in place a legislative floor, and part of that floor is, of course, the requirement to prove who you are. If you cannot do that, effectively you are balancing up the right to vote with the right to know who the voter is or whether the voter can say who they are and prove who they are. Can they present something as simple as a piece of identification? What is being argued here today is simply that, in the guise of enfranchisement—straight out of the ALP textbook—we are prepared to erode or, even worse, dilute the requirements around integrity of the voting process.

Let us go straight to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I would like to focus on the dissenting report. I think it is important that we go through that clearly. Unlike the government, I am not going to focus on every schedule and give each schedule two minutes. I am going to focus on what we disagree on. It is always a bit suspicious when government speakers come in here and devote two minutes to each schedule, because you truly wonder whether they get what we are debating today. There is disagreement on two schedules in particular—the Australian people are concerned about two schedules in particular—and we agree on the rest. There is no need to devote half of your speech to things upon which we all agree. People want to know why this government is allowing voters to turn up to vote and not be able to present some ID. In the pubs and clubs and around the parking areas around shopping centres, people will say that, if you are going to get out of bed, put on your clothes and drive down and vote, it is reasonable that, if you are asked who you are, you can prove who you are with some ID. Most people find that a thoroughly reasonable request by the DRO.

What we have here is a fairly fluffy obfuscation around this debate, saying that it is all about inclusivity. It is almost this electoral relativism, which is that it is more important that every person who wants to vote is handed a ballot paper because in some way, if we were not to do that, it might affect the result of an election. We are simply putting to the government that, on this side of the House, we have made a very clear argument that integrity of the roll is essential and the AEC needs time to prepare that roll so that the vote can be done properly. In the end, as I think all Australians would agree, the great threat—even though it may well be minor—of fraudulent voting is eliminated.

Australians are right to be fearful that someone can go to one ballot place and say, ‘I’m Jack Smith,’ and get a vote and be ticked off and go to another ballot place and say, ‘I’m Jack Smith,’ and be ticked off and do it two, three or multiple times and, in the end, when the AEC comes back and says, ‘Did you vote a number of times?’ and that person says no, all of those votes are in the hopper. How do we pick out those votes and remove them? They are not provisional votes. These people have fraudulently voted. There has to be some way of preventing that, and I think the average Australian would agree. We are down to the last speakers, and I challenge the members sitting on the other side to answer the question: how will one deal with fraudulent voting? I ask government members to answer that question.

Australia’s voting system is something of which we are all proud, and we are defending 99 per cent of it. The building blocks of our democratic system—compulsory voting, preferential voting—are things that we truly support. But what the majority of members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters are basically saying is that they do not want to impose an unwarranted inconvenience, and that inconvenience is to show some photo identification. I do not think any reasonable person taking a glance at that proposition would say that that is an unwarranted inconvenience that will dissuade people from coming and voting or will change a result. What will change it is a lack of integrity in the system—not only fraudulent voting but also a perception amongst people that it is not worth getting out and voting because there is so much fraud. We are obliged to fight to eliminate fraud in voting wherever we can. Whether we think it is a big or a small problem, it is important that we have rules.

In its recommendation, the committee is basically saying that we should repeal section 155 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and replace it with a new provision that allows people to enrol for up to seven days after closure of the writs. A very important point that has not been clearly made is that the closure of the writs occurs a number of days after an election is called. I am just not sure how disenfranchising it is for someone to hear that an election of some form or another has been called and to have the desire to vote but not be able to get to an AEC office within three or four working days to update the roll, as it currently is under the 2007 changes made by the coalition when in government. No case has yet been made by any speaker here that there is a significant threat to the integrity of the system from allowing only four days and not extending it out to seven days.

This government, on the other side of the chamber, has only one job to do in this debate, and that is to find within the AEC the resources to guarantee the integrity of the roll between its proposed seven-day cut-off and election day. We can ask the AEC. In their first submission to the committee the AEC made the statement at 2.3.1 that:

The reduction in the close of rolls period meant that during 2007 the AEC—

had the time and—

placed a strong emphasis on ensuring that eligible electors were correctly enrolled prior to the issue of the writs and that the focus was on having—

for the first time—

an “election ready roll” at the appropriate time.

I say to those on the other side that, until there is a statement from the AEC saying anything other than that, it is clear that, by closing the rolls at the issuance of the writs, the AEC were able to do their job completely—read into that, guaranteed integrity of the system. There is nothing in the committee’s report that speaks against that proposition. There has been no case put by government members on the other side of the chamber to disprove that moving to the seven-day period will need either more resourcing—more hands on deck—or some other system whereby the rolls can be guaranteed. I challenge the final speakers to come forward with a statement from the AEC to that effect. I doubt that they will.

We on this side of the chamber say that the existing arrangements, set up in 2007, actually work. Furthermore, we know what the AEC said in 2.4.5 of their submission. They noted that, under the new rules in 2007, the number of people who missed the closure-of-the-rolls deadline in 2007 was 100,000, compared to the 2004 election, where 168,394 people missed out. There simply is no case from the government that there is a problem. In fact, the system was improved with the rules that this government is now seeking to repeal. The number of people who missed out on the cut-off was reduced by 40 per cent. All that is going to occur with the proposed changes is that an unknown number of additional people may be able to enrol but there will be a definitively reduced amount of time for the AEC to guarantee that these rolls are in good order.

In contrast to the argument that has been asserted by the government, a truly effective AEC campaign to encourage enrolment needs to be combined with a fact that is often missed by the government—the fact that failure to enrol prior to the election must have a consequence. The Speaker, who has taken his seat, knows that we all realise that there have to be consequences to every action. If you remove those consequences, you cannot expect people to follow the law. That is precisely what is being done here. We saw in 2007 a very good outcome. There was increased enfranchisement. I know how much the government want that. They want to see more enfranchisement. That was demonstrated with our laws that were implemented, and they have not been supported in these changes.

Debate interrupted.