John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 is the result of the government’s response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2004 federal election, where it chose selectively from the formal recommendation contained in the majority report and some additional measures that meet the government’s ideological self-interests. The government of course denies that there is any self-interest or impure motivation in these changes; rather, it tries to sell them as important and necessary changes to stop what it perceives as widespread electoral rorts and fraud.

The claim that the legislation is designed to combat electoral fraud in this country is contradicted by the simple fact that Australia has no history of widespread electoral fraud. The real basis for this legislation appears to be that the government believes it will gain a partisan advantage at future elections as a result of the reforms. The dissenting report by my colleagues Senator Forshaw and Senator Carol Brown on the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into the provisions of this bill states, at 1.22 on page 38:

The proposition that large scale fraud has occurred, or could occur, has been previously refuted by the AEC.

They go on to quote from the Australian Electoral Commission’s Electoral Backgrounder 14: Electoral Fraud and Multiple Voting, of 24 October 2001, which said:

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

I would like to provide a more up-to-date statement of the AEC’s views on this matter but, unfortunately, they have in recent times been extremely reluctant to offer any view on this or any other matters that are a subject of this piece of legislation. This is obviously another example of this government shutting down access to any information or advice that may challenge its preferred position.

This debate is supposed to be about the integrity of the electoral processes in this country, but maybe we should start debating the integrity of the political processes in this place since the government got the numbers in this chamber. It is my view that the integrity of the political processes is in need of more urgent reform than that of our electoral systems. I have little doubt that any such debate would be shut down very quickly, so I will return to the bill before us.

In their dissenting report, Senator Forshaw and Senator Carol Brown rightly acknowledge that Labor is particularly concerned about sections of the bill which provide for the earlier closure of the electoral roll, reduce the amount of time a voter has to change their existing details on the electoral roll, introduce a new proof of identity requirement for people enrolling or updating their enrolment, establish a proof of identity requirement for provisional voting, increase a number of the disclosure thresholds to above $10,000, increase the size and scope of the tax deductibility of political donations and further restrict the electoral rights of prisoners. The ALP committee members also expressed some concern about the possible impact of changes to the reporting obligations of third parties on charities and community groups.

I will now turn to each of these provisions and Labor’s concerns in more detail. We are concerned with the early closures of the roll and the new proof of identity requirement for people enrolling or updating their enrolment. The bill proposes that for all new enrolees or those that have been taken off the roll, the electoral rolls will effectively close at 8 pm on the day writs for an election are issued, with an exception for 17-year-olds who will turn 18 between the issue of the writs and election day and for those granted citizenship between those times. For those people who need to update their enrolment details, the rolls will close at 8 pm on the third day after the issue of the writs.

The constituents most affected by these proposed changes to the closure of the rolls and voter enrolment regimes will be young people, people with lower levels of education, Indigenous Australians, Australians from non-English-speaking backgrounds and people with no fixed address. All of these groups already suffer a degree of disadvantage in making their individual voices heard in the political process. Although sometimes these groups may have others that purport to speak on their behalf, the ability to express their own choice directly through exercising their vote at the ballot box is often the only opportunity for them to actively participate in their democracy. These changes will place another significant barrier between them and direct participation in the selection of the people who should represent them.

For young people in particular, who may be on the threshold of taking up their franchise to fully participate in our democracy, these changes provide new difficulties to their enrolment or the maintenance of correct enrolment to vote. Where under current arrangements they would have seven days after the issue of writs to enrol or update their enrolment, now they will only have until 8 pm on the day writs are issued—unless they are turning 18 between the issue of the writs and the election day, and then, very big-heartedly, the government will give them until 8 pm on the third day after the issue of writs. Further, they will, under these proposals, need to provide a prescribed form of identity which must be certified by two others who cannot be their parents or a relative.

Contrary to the delusions that some on the other side of the chamber may hold—like the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Kevin Andrews, who suggested during the debate on the Work Choices legislation that if young people felt uncomfortable negotiating with their employer they could have their solicitor or accountant do it for them—young people generally do not have an army of advisers and assistants to complete these tasks for them. They have to do it for themselves. Most young people at this age also have study and work commitments that they have to meet which further eat into their time.

As Senator Forshaw so rightly noted in his report into the provisions of this bill:

The Government has provided little, if any, justification for these changes which will seriously impact upon the opportunity for various groups or persons to enrol or update their enrolment details once an election is called. There is nothing in the Explanatory Memorandum or in the Minister’s Second Reading Speech to support the proposed reduction.

He went on to note:

The AEC informed the committee that at the 2004 Federal Election around 423,000 persons enrolled, re-enrolled or changed their enrolment details in the 7 days after the issue of the writs. This figure included 78,908 new enrolments and 78,494 re-enrolments—that is, persons who had previously been on the roll but had been removed. A further 255,000 persons changed their enrolment details.

The AEC also informed the committee that approximately 130,000 of the total number came in on the last day before the rolls closed and a further 150,000 sought to enrol or change their details after the 7 day period.

The only submissions to the inquiry supporting the early closure of the electoral roll were made by the Liberal and National Parties and the Festival of Light.

Isn’t that a surprise! Senator Forshaw continued:

They argued that due to the alleged heavy workload of the AEC the current 7 day period provides a potential for fraudulent enrolment to occur—on such a large scale that it could affect the outcome of an election. It is asserted, by the proponents of these changes, that large numbers of persons can be moved on and off the roll in specific electorates during this 7 day period.

The report went on to state:

These arguments lack both evidence and credibility. No evidence that this has ever occurred, or even been attempted in previous elections, was presented to the committee.

So without evidence, without any rationale whatsoever, the government have gone down the path that they have done. The report from Senator Forshaw continued:

In contrast, there is substantial historical and expert evidence that the electoral roll and the conduct of elections by the AEC in Australia are of the highest integrity.

I think that is important for the people out there in voter land to remember. We run a relatively clean system. We are not dealing with a system that is bankrupt. We are not dealing with a system that is corrupt. It is a system in which the conduct of the elections has the highest integrity. Senator Forshaw’s comments went on:

The AEC has an enviable record of maintaining the integrity of the electoral roll over many years.

In 2001/02 the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) conducted a performance audit of the integrity of the electoral roll. The ANAO found that the roll is one of high integrity.

The ANAO is an organisation that I have enormous respect for. One cannot underestimate the value of that report from the ANAO in finding that the roll is one of high integrity. Senator Forshaw’s comments went on:

The ANAO concluded that the electoral roll was likely to be 95 per cent accurate.

Given that high praise, it is not unexpected that our Australian Electoral Commission are invited by a number of our neighbours to assist them in their electoral processes. Being given the clean bill of health by the ANAO is one of the highest credit ratings that one can have in electoral terms.

It seems clear that these measures will not improve the integrity of the electoral roll or relieve the pressure on AEC officers during the period after the calling of an election. On the contrary, they have the potential to disenfranchise a significant number of voters and to compress the normally high voter contact after the announcement of an election from seven days into three.

I now turn to schedule 1, items 17 to 19, 21 to 23, 25 to 27, 29 to 35, and 100 and 101 of the bill. Those items establish a new proof of identity regime for those enrolling to vote or updating their details on the electoral roll. The new regime will require the person to provide their driver’s licence or, if they do not have a driver’s licence, show another acceptable form of identification—for example, a passport or birth certificate—that is witnessed by an appropriately enrolled attestor, and that person cannot be related to or live with the applicant.

In schedule 1, items 47 to 49, 71, 72, 90, 91, 112, 113, 131 and 132 establish a proof of identity regime for provisional voting. The elector must either show a satisfactory form of identification, a driver’s licence or other prescribed identification document at the time of casting a vote or must present the abovementioned identification to an officer before the close of business on the Friday following the polling day. My colleagues on the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into the provisions of the bill have concisely set out the problems these measures can produce. I will quote from page 41 of the committee report where, on proof of identity for enrolment purposes, they said in paragraph 1.35:

The ALP committee members contend that this change to the Act will make it more difficult for people to enrol or to update their enrolment, and will have the effect of increasing the number of people who are unable to vote. Those least likely to be able to comply with these requirements will once again be:

• young Australians;
• Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds;
• indigenous Australians; and
• the homeless.

Surprise, surprise! At paragraph 1.36 of the report, my colleagues stated:

We point out that in all states and territories between 10 and 20 per cent of adults do not have a driver’s licence, and that many of these will also lack other forms of documentation.

On that point, consider access to birth certificates as one form of ID. Imagine the problems for someone living in Cairns, in beautiful North Queensland, in my state, who was born in Western Australia. Imagine the difficulties in securing a copy of their birth certificate in the next to no time frame given by the government under this legislation. Remember that election dates are often a very tightly guarded secret. I am yet to find a government of any political persuasion that advertises the election date, although from time to time they might try to leak it for some advantage—but that seldom happens. So what hope do you think a person would have of getting a birth certificate issued and then finding two people who could certify their identity within, at best, three days but in most cases in a matter of 24 hours? It would be between zero and none. We have many more isolated communities than Cairns—and if you think Cairns is easy to get to, try and get a flight there—as do Western Australia and the Northern Territory. What hope will people in those areas have to ensure their right to vote?

To return to the report: my colleagues rightly pointed out at 1.37:

Such disadvantageous changes could only be justified if it were to be shown that the current system for enrolment and re-enrolment allowed a significant level of false enrolments or other kinds of electoral fraud. No convincing evidence in support of these claims was shown to the inquiry.

At 1.38 their report goes on:

ALP committee members also point out that the extra time which would be required for the AEC to process applications substantiated with a range of verifying documentation would create a backlog of applications in the period prior to the closing of the rolls, particularly when considered in conjunction with provisions of the bill to close the rolls on the day of the issuing of the writs. In sum, the effects of this legislation may lead to an unnecessary and unacceptable increase in the workload of the AEC.

The point my colleagues make here is worthy of further comment. It is the sum of all of the measures in relation to enrolment in this bill that needs to be considered. Australians as a whole remain a very mobile population, frequently changing address. Unfortunately, often one of the last things they get around to doing is updating their electoral enrolment—and for many young people getting on the roll in the first place is difficult. This is borne out by the figures from the AEC for the 2004 election that I have quoted previously: 78,908 new enrolments and 78,494 re-enrolments—that is, persons who had previously been on the roll but had been removed. A further 255,000 persons changed their enrolment details. That is not insignificant. And that was over a seven-day period with less prescriptive proof of identity requirements.

The significant factor to note here is that 255,000 people made the effort to ensure that they were eligible to vote in their current electorate, not in an electorate where they may have previously lived. Under this legislation, that volume of new enrolments, re-enrolments and change of details must now be dealt with in a maximum of three days after the issue of writs for an election—the key motivating event for many people to see to their enrolment. Simply put, this bill is not addressing any issue other than the whims and the fancies of the government to shut out legitimately a number of Australian people who deserve to have their voices heard. The Australian people should recognise that that is the sole intent of this legislation.