Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. When there were no prosecutions for multiple voting at the last election, why is the Prime Minister now trying to suppress the vote and make Australians spend even more of their weekend queuing in long lines around the block?

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The most important issue in front of the people of Australia is this one, according to those opposite. Of course, in the introduction of these bills, the government is ensuring that the Australian Electoral Commission is resourced to ensure that it does not impact in relation to times at the voting booth.

You know what? What this is showing is that those opposite are going to use every excuse to fight against a provision that is used in a lot of liberal, like democracies around the world. They talk about voter suppression. I just want to again reiterate: of the three last elections in Queensland, one of them had voter ID; two of them didn't. The one with voter ID, with the highest level of integrity, had a higher turnout than the two without it. They will use any excuse, those opposite, to defeat this legislation. I tell you what: on every question they ask, I begin to wonder more and more about what their motivations might be in relation to these issues. As I said, under the way this has been designed, which those opposite even didn't wait to read before they took the action they took this morning—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will pause. The members for Oxley and Mackellar will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Oxley and the member for Mackellar then left the chamber.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So concerned about our democracy are those opposite that they moved motions to prevent this bill being debated this morning before they read the detail of the bill. If they had read the detail of the bill, they would have learned that this has been designed in a way that will ensure that no voter is turned away from a voting booth—not one voter. A person with ID can attest to the identity of another. Failing that, a declaration vote can be issued.

What is it that those opposite are scared of? Why are they against it? And why are they committing so much time today to this issue? The more they do, the more I realise there must be something in it for them to take this position; there must be. I tell you what: it says something about those opposite.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not telling me anything; just tell the chamber.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Cabinet) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am being asked more questions about this than I was asked about the national response to child abuse yesterday.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the minister will resume his seat.