Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 and thank Senator Faulkner for bringing to the debate today some historic perspective in terms of the experience that occurred in 1983 and the lessons that the government has refused to learn from that debacle. I am with Senator Faulkner: this bill serves two important purposes. First of all, it is an attempt by the Howard government to disenfranchise those who do not normally vote for them; and, secondly, it is an attempt to create an environment where the political process in this country can be distorted and obscured by raising the disclosure threshold and increasing and extending the terms of tax deductibility for political donations. As you are well aware, Mr Acting Deputy President Brandis, Labor strongly opposes this bill and we strongly oppose any attempts by the Liberal-National coalition to use an electoral device to secure political advantage this way.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act was designed to enfranchise all the citizens of Australia—not, as the Howard government is trying to do with this bill, to disenfranchise some of them. It is about citizens of this great country exercising their democratic right—a right that the Prime Minister seeks to revoke, a right that Senator Minchin would have not as compulsory under an act of parliament but as something that people could opt in or opt out of. Thankfully, the bill does not go this far. It is to the detriment of Australia’s electoral system that the Howard government is seeking to undermine the principles of fairness, transparency, access and accountability of that system.

The Prime Minister might not believe in these ideals, but Labor does. Labor supports reform which closes loopholes in the Electoral Act. Labor supports reform of loopholes that allow for secret political donations because Labor believes that political parties should provide full disclosure of their incomes. Labor believes in four-year fixed terms for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. With fixed terms, no government could manipulate the electoral cycle for its own political gain. With fixed terms, the quality of our government would be improved, and that has got to be good for our democracy. So, instead of the ridiculous debate that ensues every three years about when an election might be held, a fixed four-year term for both houses would allow the Australian people to judge their governments over a defined time period. Fixed four-year terms for the Senate would mean that every election would be in effect a double dissolution election. As such, the Australian people would have the final say on any legislation blocked by the Senate—and that has to be an extremely democratic method of resolving deadlocks.

But the Prime Minister would like the Australian public to believe that the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 is only about ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. I have a lot of faith in the people of Australia, and they will see right through this shameful attempt by the government to marginalise those Australians it knows would never vote for it. This bill is a shameful attempt by the government to violate a fundamental right that accompanies citizenship of Australia: the right to participate in the democratic process. By removing the right to vote for people serving full-time sentences in Australian prisons, the government is removing a fundamental right that all citizens of this country should have. In a fair and just society all citizens, including prisoners, should be able to vote. I have serious doubts about the constitutional validity of this bill and, if it is enacted, there is little doubt it would be susceptible to a High Court challenge.

Significantly, and as is now quite usually the case, there is no explanation from the government as to the rationale behind this measure of the bill. Nowhere in the explanatory memorandum or in the minister’s second reading speech is there an explanation of the purpose of this aspect of the bill. It is typical arrogance from the Prime Minister to provide the Australian people with no explanation whatsoever of what is an important aspect of the bill. The government believes that denying the right to vote to prisoners will be educative and a deterrent to crime. I would have thought that the democratic opportunity to vote would assist a prisoner with his or her rehabilitation. Denying a fundamental right to any citizen, prisoners included, is counterintuitive to the aims of rehabilitation.

In reality, this measure of the bill is aimed at Indigenous Australians, because there are currently over 5,000 Indigenous Australians in prisons, representing 22 per cent of the total Indigenous population of Australia. All Australians should be ashamed to learn that in 2003 the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that Indigenous persons were 16 times more likely to be in prison than non-Indigenous people. The bill will also affect people with mental illnesses and people with intellectual disabilities—two groups of people overrepresented in Australia’s prison population. Can I endorse the words of Justice Michael Kirby during the 2004 High Court case of Muir v the Queen when he said:

Prisoners are human beings. In most cases they are also citizens of this country, ‘subjects of the Queen’ and ‘electors’ under the Constitution. They should, so far as the law can allow, ordinarily have the same rights as all other persons before the Court. They have lost their liberty while they are in prison. However, so far as I am concerned, they have not lost their human dignity or their right to equality before the law.

The European Court of Human Rights, the Canadian Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of South Africa have all found that it is unconstitutional to deny prisoners their political right to vote. This government is hell-bent on eradicating the voice of anyone who it knows will not vote for it, and this bill is another aspect of that agenda.

I am particularly concerned about the dual components of this bill which serve to raise the disclosure limit on political donations and make changes to the deductibility of donations to political parties. One of the most significant threats facing Australia’s democracy is the potential for political parties to become beholden to those who have made the financial contributions to their campaign. It was the Labor Party who introduced electoral disclosure laws to restore transparency to campaign funding. Labor does not believe in secret, behind-closed-doors donations to political parties or candidates. Such an environment can lead only to corruption. But what the government of Australia is hoping to achieve with this bill is utterly disgraceful. It is nothing more than an invitation for corrupt practices and it undermines the very fabric of democracy in Australia.

With this bill, the Howard government continues to abuse its Senate majority. It continues to abuse the very integrity of Australia’s democracy. In Australia it is the very fact that political donations must be disclosed that prevents people or organisations buying political influence. The Howard government would rather conduct secret backroom deals in return for favourable policy decisions than support and encourage democracy in Australia. Rather than support measures that ensure fundraising bodies working for political parties, politicians or candidates disclose their accounts in full, the Howard government prefers to advantage itself at the expense of political integrity. By allowing donations of up to $10,000 to remain completely anonymous, the potential for rorting is very significant. So the bill is nothing more than shameless self-interest from the Liberal Party.

If this bill is passed, the Australian people will no longer have the right to know how much money someone donated to the Liberal Party before being appointed to a plum position—like the Reserve Bank board, for example. It is no secret that the Liberal-National Party coalition will be a major beneficiary of this legislation, with increased donations from wealthy Australians and corporations. This means that more than 80 per cent of all the current donors to the Liberal Party will no longer have to disclose their interests in our political processes. It is certainly telling that the Howard government, when presented with the opportunity to reform the electoral process, chooses not to strengthen the transparency of the political process but rather prefers to create an environment of secrecy and corruption. Labor supports more effective and more frequent disclosure of political donations.

With this bill, the Howard government also seeks to deliver a whopping tax break to those people who donate to campaigns, by increasing the amount that can be claimed as a tax deduction from $100 to $1,500. It beggars belief that someone should get a tax break for making a donation to a political party. Why isn’t the government abolishing tax deductability for political donations, rather than increasing it? Political parties are not charities. It is not reasonable—and the Australian people will agree with me that it is not reasonable—for political parties to be able to claim the same status. There is a very good reason for this. Political parties receive public funding that is based on their primary vote at elections, and it is unfair for any political party to be able to receive both public funding and tax deductibility of donations. This is nothing more than another shameless attempt by the Liberal Party to put its own interests ahead of the national interest.

Not only does this bill seek to raise the tax deductibility for donors from $100 to $1,500; it will also allow companies to claim deductibility where previously only individual donors could claim it. When you combine that with the $10,000 disclosure limit, it is clear that in the future this measure will be used to buy political influence without any disclosure at all and with the bonus that it will be tax deductible as well. Labor supports measures to tighten the laws governing political donations, not measures that corrupt the integrity of the electoral system.

The value of this bill should be determined by asking whether it contributes to increasing the number of eligible Australians who get to have their say on election day. Sadly, this bill fails disgracefully in that regard. At a time when there is already a great deal of cynicism and a lack of interest in the political process in Australia, the government should be seeking to reinforce democratic values, not erode and undermine them. People lead busy lives today, and they are becoming less and less interested in politics. If ever there is a time that someone is likely to be motivated to play their part in the political process, it is at the time that an election is called. Instead, the Howard government further disenfranchises them by denying them their say.

Senator Abetz justified this measure in the bill by claiming that it will decrease the workload of the AEC once an election is called. Rather than providing the AEC with the necessary funding and resources to work efficiently, the Howard government prefers to take away the rights of some Australians. Dr Brian Costar, Professor of Victorian State Parliamentary Democracy at Swinburne University of Technology, wrote in his submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill:

... the decision to close the roll at 8pm the day the writs are issued ... has the capacity to effectively disenfranchise some 300 000 people on dubious grounds.

Dr Costar believes—and I agree with him on this—that the current seven-day grace period should be retained. The reality is that, for many of the reasons I have already outlined, there are a lot of people who do not give any thought to an election until the media scrutiny begins, once the election is called. Allowing seven days after the writs are issued gives people time to enrol to vote or to update their information on the electoral roll.

According to the AEC, in the seven days between the issuing of the writs and the closing of the roll, 240,000 people enrolled to vote for the last federal election. Given that the Howard government now wants that roll to close on the same day that the writs are issued, it is not difficult to anticipate, as Dr Costar did, that hundreds of thousands of people will be denied a significant democratic right. Not least will be young people, the homeless and Indigenous Australians, who are all significantly underenrolled.

Instead of removing a democratic right of Australian citizens, this government should be funding the AEC adequately so that it can provide programs that encourage Indigenous enrolment. It should also be funding a significant electoral education program in the lead-up to the next federal election.

The right to vote is a fundamental human right. Article 25(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Australia is a signatory, provides that all citizens have the right to vote. The United Nations Human Rights Committee also recognises that access to the right to vote is a fundamental part of civil and political rights. Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights imposes a number of obligations on Australia regarding civil and political rights. Australia has ratified the covenant and is bound by it.

Not even the body charged with scrutinising the identity of new electors—that is, the Australian Electoral Commission—supports the government’s bill. In its submission to the Senate inquiry, the AEC had this to say:

The AEC is on record repeatedly expressing its concern at suggestions to abolish or shorten the period between the issue of the writs and the close of the rolls. That period clearly serves a useful purpose for many electors, whether to permit them to enrol for the first time (tens of thousands of electors), or to correct their enrolment to their current address so that they can vote in the appropriate electoral contest (hundreds of thousands of electors). The AEC considers it would be a backward step to repeal the provision which guarantees electors this seven day period in which to correct their enrolment.

Despite the fact that Senator Abetz believes this bill will reduce the workload of the AEC once an election is called, even the AEC believes the potential could exist for hundreds of thousands of people to become disenfranchised if the government succeeds in ramming this bill through the parliament. As Senator Faulkner so rightly pointed out, this is exactly what happened in 1983. He described very clearly the stress that was caused to the AEC in dealing with the debacle of that event, and it was reported very clearly by the AEC.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 has the following to say about the right to vote:

States must take effective measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right. Where registration of voters is required, it should be facilitated and obstacles to such registration should not be imposed. If residence requirements apply to registration, they must be reasonable, and should not be imposed in such a way as to exclude the homeless from the right to vote. Voter education and registration campaigns are necessary to ensure the effective exercise of ... rights by an informed community.

I think it is telling that this bill—either in part or in its entirety—is opposed by such organisations as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law and the Human Rights Law Resource Centre. This bill is nothing more than the Liberal Party attempting to entrench its dominance in the federal elections. It is the Howard government once again abusing its Senate majority to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act in a way that is not in the national interest. It is about a government that is not governing for all of us; it is governing for it. Labor opposes this bill.