Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I indicate at the outset that Labor supports this bill, which contains measures arising from the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related to it. I want to make the point that this bill is the second layer of changes that have been introduced by the government with respect to the recommendations of the report. Whilst Labor is happy to support the particular amendments before the chamber, it must be emphasised that the earlier legislation which was passed through this place with the support of the government senators introduced some very regressive measures which altered Australia’s electoral system. Those measures were clearly introduced by the government to try and seek partisan political advantage.

It is worth remembering some of the key aspects of the changes which this government previously pushed through the chamber. First is the early closure of the electoral roll, which will now close for most new enrollees on the day the writs are issued. This will give existing enrollees only three days to correct their details. If this measure had been put in place for the last election, up to 80,000 Australians might have been unable to enrol to vote. Up to 280,000 people in total could have been affected by having a substantial fault on their enrolment. The electoral changes which were pushed through by the Howard government also introduced far greater identity requirements for enrolment, which have the potential to disenfranchise many Australians.

There are new requirements for provisional voters to prove their identity. Voters on election day who are not listed on the electoral roll are currently able to cast a provisional vote. After election day the bona fides of these ballots are investigated by the AEC and, if they should be admitted to the count, they are. The government intends to force those who cast a provisional vote to provide additional proof of identity. We should know that over 180,000 Australians cast provisional votes at the last election. So, the government with its previous amendments pushed through increased restrictions on people’s ability to vote. Certainly the early closure of the rolls, which was pushed through in this place, will potentially disenfranchise a great many young people. Why is the government so intent on putting in place measures which will make it more difficult for many young Australians to cast a vote?

However, as you will recall, on the last occasion that a related bill was before the chamber, that legislation made it far easier to donate large sums of money to a political party without any public scrutiny whatsoever. For example, there was an increase in the declarable limit for disclosure of political donations to $10,000, and there has an increase in tax deductibility for political donations from $100 to $1,500. In other words, the previous approach taken by the government in the 2006 legislation made it harder to vote but easier to donate.

Having said that, the bill before the chamber deals with a range of other issues which Labor does support. It contains amendments for the expansion of postal vote provisions for ADF and AFP personnel, revised arrangements for the delivery of postal voting material, an increase in the number of AEC officers who are eligible to receive postal vote envelopes, the introduction of trials for electronically assisted voting for the visually impaired, and remote electronic voting for ADF personnel deployed overseas. Additionally, the bill proposes to repeal defamation provisions that carry criminal actions and penalties for defamation against electoral candidates.

The committee’s report recommended that the Commonwealth Electoral Act be amended to specifically permit ADF and AFP personnel serving overseas to become general postal voters. These people will automatically be sent ballot papers for each election without first having to lodge a postal vote application, giving them more time to return their postal vote. The act currently provides that an application should be regarded as not having been made if it reaches the AEC officer after 6 pm on the day prior to polling day—a Friday. This bill repeals that provision and substitutes a new provision to provide that the deadline by which postal vote applications must be received in order to be processed is 6 pm on the Thursday—that is, two days before polling day. As I understand it, the intention behind these amendments is to enhance the prospect of postal voters receiving postal voting material in time for completion on or before polling day.

The bill also inserts a new subsection that provides that, for postal voting applications received after the new deadline, the commission is required to make reasonable efforts to contact those applicants to advise them that their applications have not met the deadline and of the need for them to vote by other means. This gives effect to the government’s response to part of recommendation 9 of the committee’s report. The act currently provides that an elector who casts a postal vote shall post or deliver the completed postal voting envelope on which the postal vote certificate is printed to the appropriate DRO. Where it is unlikely that the completed envelope could reach the appropriate DRO within 13 days after polling day, the act currently allows for the envelope to be returned to other AEC officers.

This bill expands the range of officers who can receive completed postal voting envelopes in order to provide postal voters with greater flexibility and options for returning their voting material in time to be included in the scrutiny. The range of officers who will now be able to receive completed postal voting envelopes will include electoral visitors at hospitals and prisons, mobile polling team leaders, and certain office holders and ongoing employees of the AEC’s capital city offices.

The bill also inserts into the act trials of electronic voting methods. It includes the provision for a trial of electronically assisted voting for sight-impaired Australians and a trial of remote electronic voting for Defence personnel serving outside Australia. I understand that electronic voting for sight-impaired people was trialled in six locations at the Victorian state election. Initial advice from the Victorian Electoral Commission was that the trial certainly provided significant advantages for sight-impaired people. However, Labor also understands that the number of people who participated in the trial was less than had been hoped. I understand that my colleague the shadow special minister of state will be obtaining further advice from the VEC about the trial and that a report will be provided to the Victorian parliament.

The trial of remote electronic voting for Defence personnel will be rolled out on Defence’s secure network and will include approximately 1,500 people. The government has indicated it may consider extending the trial, as recommended by the committee, but as yet has made no commitments. Under this proposed trial method there will be a printed record of the vote a person has cast. Once a person has cast an electronically assisted vote, the vote record will be placed in an envelope upon which a completed declaration has been made. Information on the outside of the envelope will enable preliminary scrutiny of the votes to take place. This will not be capable of identifying the elector, consistent with the process adopted for prepoll. The vote record produced at the prepoll voting office will not be required to be an exact replication of the ballot paper in order to ensure the secrecy of the vote is maintained. However, the vote record will and must be capable of producing a document, whether it is a replication of the ballot paper or otherwise, that accurately reflects the voter’s intention for scrutiny purposes. I indicate that Labor fully supports this initiative and welcomes the opportunities that new technologies provide in assisting people to vote.

Apart from these primary reforms, there are also a number of other minor amendments. These relate to, for example, alternative documentary evidence which may be supplied by people enrolling from overseas, under sections 94A and 95 of the act. Such persons will now be given the option of supplying either their Australian passport number or their driver’s licence number as documentary evidence of their name. Under the bill the commission will also be able to establish a prepoll voting office when, due to exceptional circumstances, it would not be possible to gazette the declaration prior to commencement of the operation of the prepoll voting office. This provision will operate as an exception to the general requirement to gazette prepoll voting offices. This will allow prepoll voting offices to be established in circumstances where the AEC is required to quickly ensure that electors are able to cast votes. It will still be required to publish a copy of the declaration in the gazette as soon as practicable.

As I indicated at the outset, this bill also repeals provisions which make it an offence for a person to make or publish any false and defamatory statement in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate. Such cases of defamation will instead be dealt with in accordance with the civil law of defamation existing in the relevant state or territory jurisdiction. This will bring candidate defamation actions in line with existing legislation and common law. This item gives effect to another recommendation of the committee report.

This legislation does have some important reforms designed to enhance the operation of our system to provide people with a greater opportunity to be able to cast a vote. With electronic assistance voting, allowing Defence Force personnel to register as general postal voters, and providing different provisions in terms of who can receive postal votes after they have been filled in, there are aspects of this legislation which will provide people with a greater capacity to participate in the democratic process. However, as I said at the outset, this bill stands in direct contrast to the last bill in this area that the Howard government brought forward in response to the joint committee’s recommendations. That bill produced a number of changes that made it harder for some sections of Australian society to vote.

One of the main changes, which has been much talked about and to which I referred earlier, in the previous bill was the early closure of the electoral roll. There is no doubt that closing the roll early may produce an administrative nightmare, with people being incorrectly enrolled. There is also no doubt that it is likely to lead to a large number of people being excluded from being able to cast a valid vote. This has the capacity to impinge upon the operation of Australia’s democracy. As I said earlier, if the changes the government forced through with its previous bill had been in place during the last election, up to 80,000 Australians might have been unable to enrol to vote and up to 280,000 Australians could have been affected by a substantial fault in their enrolment.

I want to make some comments about the position that the AEC has taken in relation to the new measures concerning early closure of the rolls. The AEC chose to support these changes, which contrasts with the position that previous electoral commissioners have held over the last decade. In response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2004 election, the electoral commentator Antony Green stated:

If suddenly the election is called two or three months early, people will not have regularised their enrolment. You will cut young people off, as the numbers show ...

On previous occasions when these sorts of proposals were put forward by this government, they were rejected by the commission. Previous commissioners have indicated that this approach was not a good idea for Australian democracy. Among the concerns expressed by previous commissioners are the concerns that the Labor Party raised in relation to the specific amendments, and many independent experts have voiced similar views. However, the current electoral commissioner has clearly changed his view and has made that clear to the parliament.

Labor remain extremely concerned about the approach the government took in its previous legislation. Figures in the AEC annual report showed that, for the first time in nearly a decade, the total enrolment in the Australian electoral system actually went down. I understand that, at recent Senate estimates, the commission indicated there was some concern about what that meant. Labor are concerned as to how well the commission will be able to administer the electoral roll, given that there is clear evidence of real problems with the current system. The issue remains a great concern and there are still states and territories where roll numbers are declining.

As I indicated earlier, other changes pushed through by the Howard government include much stricter identity requirements for enrolment. The new requirements will make it harder for people to enrol and harder for people to be able to cast a valid vote. We can see that from the requirement for provisional voters to provide identification on election day. This is despite the fact that the government has acknowledged, and ministers have repeatedly acknowledged, that there is not an issue with fraud within the Australian electoral system.

Unlike the previous legislation, the bill before the chamber makes the vote more accessible to a number of Australians. It is unfortunate that it comes on the back of legislation which made the vote less accessible for a number of Australians, particularly those whose enrolment details have changed and young people, who often do not enrol or update their details until an election is called.

This legislation can be described as a small step forward, but it is a small step forward after the massive leap backwards that occurred with the legislation that the government pushed through in 2006. As I said at the outset, Labor are supporting this legislation. We do remain extremely concerned about the way in which the government treated electoral matters in its previous legislation. We have already stated that we believe the government put forward its previous changes with a clear view about how they might benefit it in a partisan sense.