Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I know where the government would like me to be. On balance, I would rather be here, because this is a very important issue that needs to be aired and discussed in full. I have appreciated the contributions that have come so far, and I look forward to the minister’s response. It might seem remarkable that something has not been said, but one of the things that has not been said about this closure of the rolls issue is that we are dealing with a very different frame of mind when it comes to many members of the Liberal Party—and I say ‘members of the Liberal Party’ deliberately, rather than ‘members of the National Party’—because many of them are supporters of voluntary voting.

If you look at the average percentage vote around the world on voluntary voting, it is far lower than our compulsory vote delivers. Therefore, you have a lot of people who really do not mind too much if a couple of million of Australians do not vote, because that is what voluntary voting would result in. It would result in a couple of million of Australians not voting. When we on the non-government side complain so loudly about the likely disenfranchisement of several hundred thousand people, in their scale of things that does not mean that much.

That comes to the second point. People like me and my party who support the compulsory vote do not regard it so much as a right, although it is very much a right, but as a duty. We think it is a fundamental duty. When you impose a duty upon a person as an aspect of citizenship, you have to be as fair and apply as much due process as possible. And that brings us to the third point. Because we do not have fixed terms, it is very unfair, profoundly unfair, to say to Australians who might be more concerned about watching a cricket match or how the kids are doing at school, or all the various things that are going on in their lives, than about updating their enrolment to record the fact that they have moved address: ‘You have a duty to vote and we expect you to vote. There is no fixed term, so you do not know the date of the election; it’s at the Prime Minister’s discretion. Anyway, we’re going to make it a little tougher for you.’ Those things make this move of the government oppressive.

The problem that I see with the government’s proposals is that, having sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for 10 years, having gone through all the hearings and having had this portfolio all this time, I still to this day have seen no evidence or grounds to justify the proposal to close the rolls early. I am well aware of the fact that other countries in other parts of the world close them a lot later in the electoral campaign period, and the history of Australia is that it closed them a lot later. The idea that it will address the possibility of electoral fraud and improve the accuracy of the roll will I think be shown, after the event, to be a complete furphy, and the idea that that has been proven in advance of this is just untrue.

In its submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election, the Australian Electoral Commission itself expressed no concern whatsoever about opportunities for electoral fraud in the last minute rush to enrol. I have been around the Electoral Commission for some time. I admire its people. It is a pretty professional outfit. It is not a perfect outfit, but it is a pretty professional outfit. If it thought there was electoral fraud, it would tell us. The AEC also considered this proposal critically. It stated the expected outcome would be:

... in direct conflict with the stated policy intention of the Government to improve the accuracy of the rolls. Further, it will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the franchise, an outcome which the AEC cannot support.

The AEC did not support this proposal when it was put to it.

Furthermore, an earlier and comprehensive review of the roll by the Australian National Audit Office in 2002 concluded:

... overall, the Australian electoral roll is one of high integrity, and that it can be relied on ...

The subsequent report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which examined that ANAO report, did not contradict that opinion. So why change something that does not appear to need fixing and why find fault where little exists? There are three possibilities. The first is that the government is blind to the consequences; the second is that it actually believes its case; and the third is that it thinks its case will result in an advantage to it.

As Senator Faulkner outlined, over 60 years of convention will end with the proposed early closure of the electoral rolls, and it will particularly affect young first-time voters. I might have some sympathy for the idea of tougher enrolment requirements, with more identification, for new enrollees, because I assume that, if you are going to get onto the roll when you should not be on the roll, you have to watch out at that stage. I have very little time for the idea that people who are already on the roll and are simply changing address, or anything else, should be subject to more restrictions or impediments to it happening easily. The Australian Electoral Commission will tell you that they constantly have to be at and at people to update their details. It is not something that Australians pay much attention to, if at all, until they come round to deciding who to vote for in the election.

I note that the government has offered a further three days over and above that which it originally proposed for people to change their details, which is a gesture towards good sense. But I am quite persuaded that the result of this proposal will be to disenfranchise tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of otherwise qualified Australian citizens.

I pointed out the case concerning this in my speech in the second reading debate, but I will close my remarks with the figures. According to the Australian Electoral Commission, during the seven-day period before the rolls closed for the 2004 federal election, 78,000 people enrolled for the first time and 345,000 people updated their details; and after the seven days there were still 150,000 people who attempted to enrol. So we are dealing there, in round figures, with nearly 600,000 people. That is what is affected by these changes. I do not think it is a chance worth taking. I think it is a reckless proposal by the government. I hope that they, and not we, will live to regret it.