Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

He was a Liberal Party fundraiser, I am advised. I am not sure whether Rodney is feeling all that happy about what you are going to put through, depriving him of the ability to vote for Malcolm Turnbull. But I am sure there are people in the Liberal Party of New South Wales that regularly visit Rodney and they can probably commiserate with him.

This bit of legislation specifically aims to strip Australians of their right to vote. It is bloody-minded ideology, and I hope that we have an opportunity in the committee stage to put it straight on the government as to what the justification for it is. But, as I said earlier, the point is that the government seems to have a view that there is some massive electoral rorting out there that occurs after the calling of the nominations for the election and during the seven-day period. As I said, 78,816 people enrolled after the calling of the election in 2004.

The implication is that we in the Labor Party—and I suppose that is what this is all about—have a massive electoral rorting unit out there that moves silently around all the various electorates throughout the country and enrols people to vote. I would suggest to you, Mr Acting Deputy President Ferguson, that I was not a member of any electoral rorting unit. I do not think Senator Campbell was. Senator McEwen was not. Certainly, Senator Forshaw was not. But maybe you can ask some of your ex-Labor Party colleagues who are now Liberal Party cabinet ministers. Maybe you should go and ask Dr Nelson what electoral rorting unit he was a member of when he was in the Labor Party. He might be able to tell you. I am sorry to see that Senator Coonan has left the chamber. I understand she was a member of Labor Lawyers; she might have been in the inner-city electoral rorting unit in Sydney.

Clearly, there is no such rorting, and it is paranoia on the government’s part to think that it is going on within the Australian community. People, for whatever reason, do have a problem enrolling on time. That was clearly demonstrated at the last election, where 78,000-odd people enrolled in the last seven days. As I said, that would be the size of some electorates in this country. In fact, in 2002, the National Audit Office said that there was 96 per cent accuracy of the roll, which rose to 99 per cent when compared to Medicare data.

So it is not exactly the case that there is rorting; but, talking about shenanigans, there are a few examples I would like to mention. Of course, we would not be talking about shenanigans if we did not mention the Liberals in the federal seat of Lindsay. The 1999 Penrith local government election comes to mind, and I have highlighted this before. As I recall it, under the watch of the member for Lindsay, who was the chair of the Penrith Liberal Party’s local government committee at the time, we had two shonky Liberal Party fronts operating: one was called the Marijuana Smokers Rights Party and the other was called the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party. The candidates for those parties enrolled at a residence co-owned by the niece of the member’s former staffer and Liberal councillor, Steve Simat. So, in talking about shenanigans, I would point out to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that so far the only ones we can highlight have been the Liberals’. As I said, the bill is a paranoid overreaction to what has been going on, and there is no difficulty with the current roll or the current system.

I am also greatly concerned that the additional requirements placed on applicants to establish their identities for enrolment will make it more difficult for them to vote. Protecting the integrity of the roll is essential, but adding to the red tape for ordinary Australians applying for enrolment is unnecessary and works counter to the support they should receive in registering to vote. I am concerned by the requirements set out in the bill. To enrol, an applicant must present a driver’s licence number or have a prescribed identity document, like a birth certificate, verified by another elector. In the event they do not possess either a driver’s licence or a prescribed identity document, the applicant’s identity must be verified by two other electors, who must possess driver’s licences.

How will that affect Indigenous voters? What about people living in remote and regional communities? How will it affect older Australians, who already struggle with providing photographic identification? What about non-provisional voters who specifically request not to be identified for their own personal reasons? Just to enrol, an applicant might have to pay $52 to the Office of Births, Deaths and Marriages and wait a couple of days for their birth certificate to arrive. How much red tape are we adding to their problems unnecessarily? Even an AWA can be lodged with just a signature. These identification requirements do not encourage integrity of the roll; they simply discourage people from lodging applications.

I also find it disgraceful that the government is moving to increase the disclosure threshold for political donations from $1,500 to $10,000. In a speech to the Sydney Institute, Senator Abetz’s argument for this change was, quite ironically, that the lower threshold ‘adds nothing to Australia’s democracy other than unnecessary red tape’. So, while Senator Abetz is unloading on red tape from political donors, he is busy heaping it onto voters simply trying to exercise their fundamental rights as Australians. The senator goes on to say:

Furthermore, when it is known which political party individuals or organizations, particularly small businesses have donated to, anecdotal evidence suggests that they are subject to pressure and intimidation.

Senator Abetz said the evidence is anecdotal, and I would say that that is about all he could say. No evidence has ever been presented that people are pressured to vote one way or the other.

My concern about the disclosure threshold is not so much for the major parties. I think we all know who votes for and contributes to the Liberal Party, and I think we all know who votes for and contributes to the Labor Party. Together at the last election, I think we probably got about between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of the primary vote. My concern about this bill is for the minor parties. Some of them are ideologically bent, and some of them are opportunistic and unprincipled. They think that the end justifies the means, and we have seen that time and time again in this place. This gives them the opportunity to rort the system if they see that the end justifies the means. I think that is something that the government should think about. The government knows who we get our money off; we know who they get it off. We know the towns, the cities, the various businessmen and whoever that contribute to our and the government’s campaign coffers. But that does not mean that there is any intimidation or pressure put on them not to. I say to the government that it is not the Labor Party it should be worried about; the disclosure threshold will be a problem from the minor parties, if you proceed with it.

On the point of disclosure, I think it is important to make mention of a complete lack of disclosure, again by the Liberals in Lindsay. I refer to a concerted effort by a group of Liberal Party members, no doubt under the guidance of Miss Kelly, to railroad the electoral boundary redistribution process currently before the Australian Electoral Commission. Thirty-four public comments were received by the commission in response to submissions made regarding the redistribution. Nine of these letters referred to the changes to the boundaries of Lindsay and Chifley as outlined in the ALP’s submission to the AEC. In a great coincidence of timing, most were written on the same day and received by the AEC at almost the same time; and I would not be surprised if they were all sent to the commission from the same fax number.

Three of these submissions were from Liberal Party members. Public comment No. 14 was from Stuart Ayres, who stood as a candidate for the Libs in the 1999 Penrith Council elections and who is a regular of Jackie Kelly’s campaigns. Public comment No. 31 was from Patricia Hitchen, who has been preselected as the Liberal candidate for the state seat of Penrith. Public comment No. 30 was from Chris Pittaway, who was tipped to be standing for the seat of Penrith but withdrew. Public comment No. 10 was from Troy Craig, secretary of the Glenmore Park Action Group, who coincidentally shares the same name as a Troy Craig thanked by the Liberal member for Macquarie in his maiden speech in 1996.

None of these letter writers declared their political affiliation, yet they did not hesitate to openly attack the ALP’s proposal. Why did they write to the commission? I would have hoped it was as diligent participants in the democratic process, but it appears their submissions are serving a purely political purpose. I hope the AEC takes note of that. Were these letters written under the instruction of Miss Kelly? If so, then this is a hijacking of the democratic process.

Bear in mind that Labor’s submission to the commission seeks to retain the seats of Lindsay and Chifley as divisions based around the Penrith local government area. The Liberal submission wants to split Lindsay across four LGAs: Penrith, Blue Mountains, Wollondilly and Liverpool. Another submission to the commission, public submission No. 12 by a Mr Warren Grzic, proposes to abolish entirely the division of Lindsay, yet neither of these submissions were targeted by the nine who chose to send their comments to the commission.

I also note the concern that submissions from two organisations claiming to represent their memberships were in fact done without consultation. Public comment No. 26 is from the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce and is signed by the chief executive officer, Yvonne Howie. Ms Howie did not bother to consult the chamber’s board of directors or its general membership before electing to put forward an opinion she falsely claimed represented over 530 businesses in Penrith. Public comment No. 10 from the Glenmore Park Action Group was again signed by the secretary, Troy Craig, who also said it represented 170 members. When a number of people who are members of this group were questioned they said they were not aware that this submission had been put in on their behalf. This bill should be opposed. History tells us that once mistrust and paranoia seep into the organs of government it is not for the consolidation of power but for its loss.