John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I can assure the Senate that I am well aware of what the bill is about, and I intend to provide context in relation to how the Howard government has dealt with the electoral laws in this country. I am not surprised, of course, that the minister at the table does not want this information on the public record. I am not surprised that the minister intends to try and stop this sort of information—not ravings like we had from the previous speaker, but important information—being presented to the Senate in this second reading debate.

In relation to these electoral law changes that I have spoken of, increasing the declarable limit for disclosure of political donations from $1,500 to $10,000 is a massive jump in the limit required before donation details must be made public. Think about what happens here. Massive sums of money go into party coffers without the public knowing. Over 80 per cent of donations would disappear from public view. In 2003-04, over $12 million across all major parties could have vanished from public scrutiny with this threshold. Think of that: $12 million in 2003 would have vanished from public scrutiny, and this government has the hide, in relation to debate on this bill, to say that it is proposing a measure that enhances democratic process in this country. Look at the record of this government. Of course, there is more. The Howard government has also increased, by 1,500 per cent, tax deductibility for political donations. That is a massive windfall to coalition donors, who no longer need to worry about their donations being open to public examination. This is the record of the government that now starts to beat its breast about democratic process.

While all this is happening, ordinary Australians are finding it harder than ever before to actually get onto the electoral roll and exercise their vote. There has never been a case where false enrolment has affected the outcome of an election in this country. Everyone knows that. Nevertheless, the Howard government has made it much harder to enrol to vote. This affects young people the most, as the minister knows, because they move more often and are more likely to change their enrolment. It affects renters more than it affects homeowners. It affects lower income Australians more than the wealthy. It hits Indigenous Australians in remote Australia especially hard, disadvantaged as they are by the distances they have to travel to register their vote and the time involved for them in the political process. So this change potentially disenfranchises thousands of Australians who cannot afford $9,999 to buy access to the political process through donations which are covered up—thousands of Australians whose voice is heard through the ballot box, not through the boardroom.

The same is true of the new requirements for Australians needing to cast provisional votes to provide additional proof of identity. If they are unable to do so, their vote will be excluded. More than 180,000 Australians cast provisional votes at the last election. That is more than 180,000 Australians whose right to cast a vote, whose right to have their voices heard, is imperilled by decisions of the Howard government. In addition, and for no good reason except partisan politics, the Howard government plans to close the electoral roll for most new enrollees on the day the writs are issued and to give people who are currently enrolled only three days to correct their details. We all know that, when an election is called in Australia, that is when people who are not enrolled usually take action to ensure they go on the rolls, and that is when people who are enrolled at an old address take action to ensure that their enrolment is corrected. A lot of people are just not like the senators in this chamber. They are not so obsessed with politics that they live and breathe it every day of their lives, and the calling of an election makes sure that they undertake this sort of action. If these new laws introduced by the Howard government had been in place at the time of the last election, 80,000 Australians who voted would not have voted at all, and up to 280,000 people in total could have been affected by having a substantial fault in their enrolment. This is the record of the Howard government in relation to electoral laws—the bread and butter of the democratic process in Australia.

We know that these enrolment changes massively increase the administrative burden on the AEC, and so does this legislation that we are debating now. Mr Paul Dacey, the Deputy Electoral Commissioner, told the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration:

... we would be very reluctant to tie up considerable AEC resources in the next few weeks ... we are not even considering the possibility of having an attendance ballot in conjunction with the federal poll ...

The government, of course, has failed to detail the funding implications of these plebiscites. They just have not been detailed at all.

As Professor Brian Costar pointed out in his evidence to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee’s inquiry into the bill, the bill has the potential to undermine the independence of the Australian Electoral Commissioner. By saying publicly that the services of the AEC will be made available for the conduct of these plebiscites, the Prime Minister and other ministers are in effect saying that the AEC will be directed by the Special Minister of State to do so, infringing the status of the commissioner as an independent statutory officer. This underlines the fact that this bill is a hastily cobbled together political stunt from a party that has done nothing, in the whole time it has been in office, to enhance electoral law or the democratic process in this country. This government has never shown an interest in giving Australians more and better opportunities to vote. The Howard government does not give a damn about enhancing our democracy; all it has ever cared about is the quick and dirty political fix, which is part and parcel—