Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to add a few comments to this discussion. I want to continue in the same vein as the previous speaker, Senator Faulkner. I want to appeal to the good nature of the minister and the government and appeal to them to show a little bit of heart, compassion and understanding.

The minister at the table, Senator Abetz, as I understand it, is legally qualified and would therefore appreciate the legal concept—it is effectively a principle, I would suggest—of a ‘period of grace’. That is where you allow a person a period of time after the expiry of an instrument to comply with a legal requirement. I can think of numerous examples that exist in our society and our law. I am sure that Senator Abetz would be aware of them.

One example comes to mind is the filing of a tax return. There are requirements for taxpayers to file their returns by certain dates; nevertheless, we all know that many Australians do not get their tax return in on time and they file it late. But they are extended a period of grace in order for that to happen. They do not get charged or hauled off to court, nor do they have a penalty imposed automatically. Indeed, substantial periods of grace are granted to people in those situations. But they know that each year on 30 June they will be required to file a tax return. So it is uppermost in their minds each year; nevertheless, many Australians are afforded a period of grace. It also occurs in areas of social security entitlements. I could go on and on with examples, but time does not permit me tonight.

The reason I raise this is that it is at the heart of this issue about the closure of the rolls. What is important here is ensuring the accuracy of the electoral roll by ensuring that all persons who are on or are eligible to be on the roll will regularise their enrolment details, so that you have the most accurate roll possible on election day. Under the government’s proposal, by removing that period of seven days after the calling of the writs you are inevitably going to end up with an electoral roll that is less accurate than it has been in the past. As Senator Faulkner just pointed out, that was the problem in 1983.

The government’s proposal does exactly the opposite of what it says it will do. It does not improve the integrity of the roll at all; it actually will reduce the integrity and accuracy of the electoral roll as it will be on election day. The government’s only response to that is: ‘Well, we are going to run a big advertising campaign and all sorts of other activities.’ But, frankly, you can send people as many letters as you like, show as many ads on TV as you like and do as many doorknocking campaigns as you like, but until you get towards the election period it is not going to be all that effective. Those of us who are deeply involved in politics know how difficult it can be to campaign on a direct basis in periods when there is no imminent election.

As we have discussed, the arguments about potential fraud are the biggest furphy that I have ever heard in this chamber in the years that I have been here. I have heard some big ones, but that is the classic. As I said the other night in my speech on the second reading, here we have a government that has been elected four times—four times they have won elections since 1996. On three of those occasions, they had a substantial majority. They won in 1998 with a minority of the votes but a majority of the seats. And here they are trying to tell us that there is potential for huge fraud to be perpetrated in an election campaign. Is the government serious? They are arguing against their own history.

Are they trying to tell us that every election that they have won since 1996 has been tampered with through fraudulent electoral roll enrolments? Is that what they are saying—that they are sitting on the government benches as a result of a massive fraud perpetrated on the Australian public? That is essentially what they are saying by putting this proposition up and running those ridiculous and spurious arguments before the Senate committee and the joint committee. ‘We have to do this,’ the government say. ‘We have to remove the seven-day period of grace because there is potential for massive fraud.’ Their own election on four occasions puts the lie to that argument. They should hang their heads in shame for having the temerity and the stupidity to advance such an outrageous and ridiculous proposition.

I also want to point to the double standards that occur here in respect of the use of a period of grace. This government is a classic when it comes to double standards. Let us look at the issue of entitlements that ministers and members of parliament receive and the requirements that apply to them. Firstly, let us look at the register of pecuniary interests. All members and senators are obliged to report on changes that occur to their pecuniary interests or potential conflicts of interest. There is a defined period of time in which to do that. It was 28 days. It is now proposed to give members of parliament an extra seven days in which to comply with the requirement to notify changes to their interests. That has been approved unanimously by the Senate Standing Committee of Senators’ Interests. Government members wanted an extra seven days; they wanted to increase it from 28 days to 35 days. In fact, some of them wanted more; some of them wanted an extra six months. They wanted to have that much time to notify changes to their share register.

It is okay to look after your personal pecuniary interests and give yourselves as much time as possible to comply with the requirements in here, but it is not okay for some voter out there who wants to get on the roll or to correct their enrolment details to have seven days to do it after an election is called. What utter hypocrisy. To give yourselves that extra time is a double standard of the most gross order.

The same thing goes with the government’s responses to committee reports or questions on notice. There are time limits set under the standing orders of this parliament. Governments have to respond to committee reports within six months. That is pretty good—you get six months to respond to a report. There are reports of the committee that I chair that we still have not had a response from the government to, and they go back 12 or 18 months. You cannot ever comply with that requirement. You treat that one with contempt. Senators get up in this chamber and ask when those responses are coming from the government and we are ignored. You treat your responsibility to the parliament to comply with the requirement to respond to a report within six months with the utmost contempt. You take as damn long as you like—it does not matter what the time limit it is.

What about questions on notice? How many of us have had the experience of estimates committees, where you are waiting for weeks or months to get answers to questions on notice—despite the time limits that are set by the Senate committees? Maybe that is going to go by the wayside along with all the other changes to committees that you are going to make. You ignore those requirements and those time limits. You take as long as you like; you give yourselves as much a period of grace as you like.

This is either stupid or plain sheer bastardry. What is it? Are you saying to the people of Australia that if you do not enrol or correct your enrolment details before the writs are called then you have committed some strict liability offence and are going to lose your right to vote? That is what you are saying. But you are going to give yourselves every single opportunity that you can to ignore some of the basic rules that apply in this place. When your ministers or other members of the government breach those requirements, such as when they have failed to notify changes to their register—and we have had some notable example recently—what happens? Nothing. They are not penalised. They do not lose any rights.

But voters of Australia are going to lose the right that they get every three years: to participate in the election of their government. You are going to take that away from them. Frankly, as Senator Faulkner said, this is the most despicable and outrageous thing that I have seen for a long time. All I can do is plead with you and ask Senator Abetz to consider the concept of a period of grace, which exists right through the law and right through our society and especially in this place. I ask you to think again and withdraw this proposition.