Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

The first area we go to is the question of reducing the enrolment period before the closure of the roll to three days. This proposal is necessary to maintain the status quo. The opposition’s concerns with this legislation go to the fact that, in essence, this is a device by which the government is seeking to restrict the franchise. We say that the bill is aimed at restricting the capacity of Australians to participate in the political system and, as a consequence, it will have the effect of undermining the legitimacy of the electoral system.

We argue that the net effect of the changes that restrict access to the roll, by reducing the period of time in which people can re-enrol, may well have the effect of disadvantaging some 430,000 people. Four hundred and thirty thousand Australians may lose their capacity to vote as a result of the actions of this government. Our concern is that, essentially, those are the people who need government the most: the homeless; people who are poor; people who are moving constantly, particularly renters; people who are migrants; people who live in distressed economic circumstances; people who tend to be least engaged in the political system. As a consequence of this government’s actions, their participation in the political system will be restricted.

We also maintain that they are people who are most likely to vote Labor. That is the core of the government’s concern about this matter: they believe that this is an opportunity to improve their electoral fortunes by disenfranchising the people who actually need the services of this parliament the most. That is why I say that this is a genuinely disgraceful action by this government. This is a device by which the Liberal Party will seek to take advantage in order to advance their political position.

The government try to tell us that this is all about electoral fraud. We have seen no evidence to support that case. We have seen isolated incidents across the length and breadth of this country. Those isolated incidents are one in a million in terms of the proportion of people who actually vote. It is a one in a million circumstance. Every time a million votes are cast in this country, the government will say that this is an example whereby someone has sought to vote improperly. It is a gross distortion and a most fatuous argument to present to try to cover up their gross embarrassment at their attempt to attack the most disadvantaged people in the country.

I know that there are circumstances of electoral fraud. I acknowledge that there have been isolated examples on a couple of occasions. I recall the allegations made against the member for Longman, Mal Brough, who said that he was aware that a member of his own staff had falsely enrolled. There was a situation where his colleague, Mr Christopher Pyne, the duchess of Sturt, simply declared that Mr Brough was entirely innocent, even before the police and the AEC had completed their investigations. That occasion was widely criticised in the media and elsewhere.

I know of members on the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters who refused to allow Liberal MP Jackie Kelly to appear before the committee when matters had been raised about electoral fraud in the Penrith local government election. So I know that there are isolated cases involving the Liberal Party. I am aware that the government does not care about those particular allegations. It tries to cite evidence to support its draconian actions against the most powerless people in our society in its attempts to disenfranchise up to 430,000 Australians and it uses opportunities that suit its political purpose.

The second area we go to is the question of proof of identity for enrolment. We have a situation where this provision will seek to force a further barrier in the road of people seeking to exercise their valid vote. Of course, if you do not have a drivers licence, for instance, there will be opportunities to provide some other form of identity. The fact that there is a requirement for proof of identity for enrolment will make it more difficult for people to enrol or to update their enrolment. In effect, it increases the number of people who are unable to vote. It is further evidence that the government’s actions are actually aimed at disenfranchising people. Between 10 and 20 per cent of adults do not have a drivers licence. That is one example. The presumption of the government is that everybody drives, but between 10 and 20 per cent of Australians do not have a drivers licence, so they will have to find some other form of prescribed identification.

It is most likely to affect once again the same groups of people—young Australians, Australians from a non-English-speaking background, Indigenous Australians, the homeless. These are the people this government does not like. These are the people that need the services of this parliament the most and these are the people that should be encouraged to participate. Yet what we are seeing from this government is an action aimed at discouraging them from participating in our political system. We strongly oppose these actions. The government is seeking to discriminate against the poor and against people who are thrown out of our political systems. The real reason this government is seeking to put up these changes is that it is seeking to take advantage of the circumstances being created by this new legislative provision.

The AEC says that this is totally unnecessary. The AEC has pointed this out over time, year in and year out. I know that considerable pressure is being placed on the AEC not to express its views on these questions. The government says that it needs to do this because there is so much pressure on the AEC to fulfil its function. Instead of providing the AEC with adequate resources, the government says that it will fix the problems by discouraging people from voting. So we take the view that once again the government really is about undermining the credibility and authority of the universality of the Australian ballot.

The third area that we go to is the question of proof of identity with regard to provisional voting. This amendment may cause serious disadvantage to 100,000 Australians. The 100,000 Australians who, on the figures I have seen, lodged a provisional vote will need to supply additional identification at the time of lodging an application or by the Friday following a polling day. If this happens we will actually see quite a substantial increase in the workload for the AEC, an additional workload on top of that occasioned by other provisions regarding the proof of identity contained in the bill. Labor opposes these provisions. The amendments I am moving tonight provide the Senate with an opportunity to reject these aspects of the bill, to point out that these actions are again aimed at discouraging people and potentially disenfranchising citizens from participating in the electoral system.

These measures seek only to impede and infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens that should be encouraged and given every possible opportunity to cast a legitimate vote and to participate in the decisions that go to making up of a government in this country. Instead of picking up the best elements of the American political system, this government is picking up the worst elements of the American political system and seeking to Americanise the election arrangement in this country. I am afraid the consequences for this country are quite serious should these measures be carried by this chamber.