Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor Party does not support the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006. Labor believes that all Australian citizens should be actively encouraged to participate in our democracy and this legislation clearly interferes with the ability of thousands of Australians to participate in federal elections. The contents of this bill are perplexing alterations to the electoral system and it is difficult to find qualities within them that could be said to strengthen the principles of democracy and openness in the Australian population. Whenever there are proposed changes to the electoral process, it is highly important that we pay close attention to why the changes are necessary and who will benefit. After all, this is the very system that facilitates the government of the day and this is the very system that presides over who steers the nation and who makes and amends our laws. The electoral system is the cornerstone of our democracy, yet this bill treats it with the utmost contempt.

One must pay close attention to the motives behind this bill and see it for what it is. Behind all of the window-dressing and rhetoric, the motives are very clear. This bill is about making it harder to vote but easier to donate to political parties. This bill is the government’s attempt to manoeuvre the way Australians vote to their own advantage. The government’s contempt is so great that they would not even grant a proper debate when this bill was in the lower house. After a series of divisions which included numerous gag motions, the bill was sent across to this chamber so that it could be rammed through the Senate. There are countless flaws in this bill and I wish to take a few minutes to review some areas, to highlight them and to expose the motives behind the frosted glass.

The proposal to close the electoral roll for most new enrolees on the same day that the writs are issued is dubious and calculating in its intentions. By doing this, the government will significantly limit the time in which Australian citizens have to ensure they are properly enrolled. Based on figures from the federal election in 2004, this would see up to 80,000 Australians not able to vote and a further 280,000 Australians who may not be eligible to vote due to indiscretions with their enrolment. Incidentally, this pitch was proposed in the Senate less than two years ago and was rejected. A quick head count will tell you why it has resurfaced. At the time, the then Special Minister of State, Senator Abetz, claimed that the Australian Electoral Commission was under ‘incredible pressure’—I think that was the term he used—to accurately check and assess the number of inward claims being made. However, the assertion by the Australian Electoral Commission on this very issue is in stark contrast to the minister’s claim. During a committee hearing in 2002, the commission expressed deep concern about this type of proposal, saying that this was in fact a very important time in the electoral cycle for many voters. During the hearing it was suggested that this period serves as a useful time for people to assess whether or not they are listed at the correct address or whether or not they can enrol for the first time due to their age. The Australian Electoral Commission, which lives, breathes and administers this system of ours, saw the move to cut off registration to enrol on the day the writs were issued as a backward step. The assertion by the commission is that the calling of an election by the respective Prime Minister of the day is the ‘alarm bell’ for most people to assess their eligibility and circumstances—and, as Senator Hurley mentioned, the position of the commission is very clear.

This sentiment was highlighted too by Professor Brian Costar during the inquiry of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee into this bill. Professor Costar remarked that the Australian Electoral Commission was very good at educating the population as to their obligations to vote and to correct any anomalies that may exist. He asserted that, although we are very good in this area, we are still not hitting the target. He candidly remarked that, even though he has been an observer of politics and public policy most of his life, he needed to sit his 19-year-old son down and:

... force him to fill out that enrolment card, despite the fact that he had been at high school and had done the VCE and legal studies at school.

Following this he said:

For a lot of young people, it is just not on their radar and they are not listening.

In other words, young people are too busy being young people to tune in to every piece of legislation that passes through this great parliament. This does not mean that they take the process lightly. It just means that they are focused on other things. We as legislators should understand this and afford them the time they need to embrace the honour of voting in a great nation like ours.

So it is evident that the Australian Electoral Commission tries very hard to reach everyone, and it should be congratulated for this. Yet, despite this, history shows that the calling of an election is the time when most people react. So what does the government have to gain from this bill? What is their motivation for the changes? Is it to make it more difficult for people, especially young people, to vote? Let us say hypothetically that the minister is correct, that there is too much strain on the Australian Electoral Commission during this period. If this is the case, the answer is not in this bill. It is not the way a progressive and just government would deal with the problem. The government should be listening to the commission and taking its expert word on this issue. In other words, the government should strengthen the position of the Australian Electoral Commission by giving it more resources to function properly, not just by cutting people off denying them the right to vote in an election.

It is claimed that the purpose of this bill is to reduce the administrative burden on the AEC, yet the proposal of greater identity checks of the electoral roll will have the opposite effect. The bill proposes that applicants to the electoral roll, both first time voters and those amending details, should provide a drivers licence, yet in 2004 a minority report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters indicated that between 10 and 20 per cent of Australian adults do not hold a drivers licence. If you do not hold a drivers licence, what must you do to meet identity requirements? The bill requires that a person without a licence show a prescribed identity document to a person who is in a prescribed class of electors and can attest to the identity of the person or have their application for enrolment signed by two referees who are not related to the applicant, have known them for one month and can provide drivers licences. This will make it more difficult to get on the electoral roll and cast a valid vote on election day.

Those who cast a provisional ballot will be denied the right to have their vote included unless they satisfy additional proof of identity requirements. In the 2004 federal election, the over 180,000 Australians who cast provisional votes would have been affected had this legislation been in place. The processing of these applications would surely take a considerably longer time than it currently does. Aside from this, the government is closing the door and locking thousands of Australian citizens out of their right to vote. So, on one hand, you will have less time to get on the roll and, on the other hand, the Australian Electoral Commission will be clogged with applicants who have to go to considerable lengths to prove their identity.

The government claims that this legislation will curb false enrolment and other forms of electoral fraud. Australia has no history of electoral fraud. Put simply, the system is not broken, so one needs to question why the government is trying to fix it. The wash-up is that enrolment will be much harder and there will be less time for people to organise it. These two changes virtually contradict each other. It seems baffling to me that, without evidence of real electoral fraud in Australia, the government wants to make it significantly more difficult for people to exercise their most basic democratic freedom. Why does the government want to do this? The answer is very simple and has nothing to do with electoral security. The government knows full well that these reforms will further disadvantage the already disadvantaged in our society—young Australians, Indigenous Australians, Australians from non-English-speaking backgrounds and Australians with no fixed address. These groups are already the most disadvantaged in Australian society. The proposed changes will marginalise them even further. I suggest that, if the government wants to capture the vote of the disadvantaged in our society, it should not tamper with basic democratic rights but rather do more for these people.

Although this is a recycled piece of legislation that was previously rejected by this parliament, this time around it seems to coincide nicely with all of the government’s other extreme legislative changes. Maybe the government have gauged the impact that the changes introduced through their extreme industrial relations agenda have had on public sentiment and the only way they can combat it at the polls is to shift the goalposts. Why would they go down this path? Because the coalition government believe that they will gain partisan advantage by amending electoral time lines for those enrolling to vote and updating their details. It costs taxpayers millions of dollars every time there is an election in this country. We need to ensure that the results are an actual reflection of public sentiment by providing every opportunity for all of our citizens to participate in the voting process.

The proposal to reduce the rights of prisoners to vote is also something that we do not support. The existing laws are more than adequate and are in line with the electoral cycle. The rationale is that a prisoner may be released during the three years of a government’s term and, as part of their rehabilitation back into society, they should have a democratic say in who holds government at that time. Today I have heard some coalition senators saying that the proposed changes will not hinder the rehabilitation process. It would be fair to say that the legislation as it stands today does not hinder the rehabilitation process. Again, we see a marginalised group in the community being further removed from the democratic process under this legislation.

The bill will make it harder for people to vote, but things are getting easier for some. Under this bill, if you want to donate a large sum of money to a political party without any public accountability, you can. This bill increases the declarable limit of political donations by almost seven times. This would see over $12 million across the board vanish from the public eye. Additionally, this legislation diminishes the accountability of the media by removing the requirement that they declare their part in the process. Currently, publishers and broadcasters are required to disclose details of pre-election political advertising, including the identity of the advertiser, the authority, the time of print or broadcast and the amount charged. We should be concerned. The bill also increases the tax deductibility of donations from $100 to $1,500. As is outlined in the explanatory memorandum, this would cost Australian taxpayers almost $5 million at the next election. Again, the motives behind this are less than well intentioned. They are simply a mechanism for the Liberal Party of Australia to attract more donations. This is exacerbated further by the limit of $1,500 on corporate offerings being increased to $10,000.

I do not accept that just because these changes to donations can be used by all political parties we should condone them. Is this how far we have come in the years since Federation? The government with their blurred sense of responsibility want to make it harder to vote. Of all the things that they could be doing to improve the integrity and accountability that is so essential in public office this is what they have come up with. They would not think to address the accountability surrounding advertising or any of the real issues surrounding the evolution of free elections. You cannot tell me that the Prime Minister and his cabinet are doing this without realising what they have to gain from it.

In all the controversy surrounding different pieces of legislation this week, these proposed changes and their impact have been seriously overlooked by the Australian media. The proposed reforms are regressive and threaten to disenfranchise thousands of voters and make the electoral system less transparent. The Howard government is intent on making it easier to donate to influence the democratic process, while at the same time making it harder to actually exercise the democratic right to participate in the voting procedure.

What we see in this legislation is just another example of an arrogant government out of touch with the Australian people—a government prepared to do whatever it can to get up its own ideological agenda. In this instance that agenda is to give the coalition government a political and financial advantage at future federal elections. This bill should be rejected in its entirety because it does little more than restrict the capacity of Australians to participate in the electoral system and the governance of our country, and it moves towards a political donation process which will lead us along the path to an Americanisation of the Australian voting system.