Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (3), (4), (9) and (10) on sheet 7360 together:

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 25), omit "fourth", substitute "eleventh".

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 27), omit "fourth", substitute "eleventh".

(9) Schedule 1, item 33, page 13 (line 16), omit "fourth", substitute "eleventh".

(10) Schedule 1, item 34, page 13 (line 18), omit "fourth", substitute "eleventh".

Before I come to the specifics of these amendments, there were a couple of other amendments flagged in earlier discussions of this bill for which I would like to outline why the opposition will not be moving them today. In the initial draft of this bill and in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters there were some provisions to deal with the events of a ballot box that had been inadvertently opened or that may have been tampered with. These were aimed at addressing the situations that occurred in Boothby and Flynn at the last election, and I hasten to add that they were inadvertent errors rather than any malfeasance. The opposition, in the inquiry into the bill, flagged our concerns with the provisions as originally drafted by the government, and we were intending to move amendments. However, we note that the government brought in their own amendments in the House of Representatives last week, and the opposition, while they do not think they are ideal, support the amendments. They are something, however, we may wish to address in the future. We do not think they deal with all of the problems.

Amendments (3), (4), (9) and (10) together are about the time for making applications for a prepoll vote. This issue was addressed in the substantive debate earlier this morning and has been addressed in great detail in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the coalition comments, so I will not take up too much of the chamber's time, but I will restate the coalition's view. Making postal vote applications available is something our electoral system does very well. It would be very difficult for people to say that accessing a means of vote outside the polling day itself is an onerous burden in Australia. In fact, both major political parties go to the trouble of printing and sending out a great deal of such forms. The prepoll voting period was originally developed in order to facilitate those who might find it easier to vote before polling day—for example, shift workers, weekend workers, emergency services workers—and then to allow them to vote before the polling day itself. The opposition believes that, contrary to the expression that has occasionally been used—'polling period'—we should do as much as we can to maintain the polling day.

When we look at other democracies around the world, the one with which many are familiar is the United States. It does provide an interesting laboratory for the consideration of different polling processes. We all know about the hanging chads and dimpled chads of the 2000 campaign; but, apart from that, we actually have very different electoral procedures adopted not just across states but also across counties. In fact, at least one state in the United States now has a state-wide postal ballot. When people have looked at the dynamics of a campaign in that state, it has proven to be quite different because you do not have a single polling day and everyone sharing the same campaign experience. The opposition does not think it is necessary to extend the period available for making applications for a prepoll vote out to, effectively, almost three weeks before polling day. We are happy with the two-week period.

I also add that I think prepolling, an extended prepolling period and an extended number of prepolling locations do provide an advantage to incumbent members, and I do not know if that is something we want to further entrench in our system. But the key argument is that we want as many people as possible to vote as close to the end of the campaign as possible. Voting in Australia is very easy by world standards. We do not have the hours and hours of queues in very cold seasons that might be experienced in North America. To have people voting three weeks earlier would effectively be less than halfway through the campaign. It is amazing what can happen over the course of a campaign, and I am sure the current and former prime ministers could attest to that with what happened in the last campaign.

So the opposition firmly believes that three weeks is unnecessary. People who know they are going to be away for that period can access a postal vote, and that postal vote, of course, can be exercised later in the campaign and posted at an appropriate time to ensure it is counted. But prepolling three weeks out gives people, in our view, too easy an option to vote too early when in many ways the campaign has not progressed past many of the substantive moments. So I urge the Senate to take those factors into account when considering these provisions, because this is not about, as was alleged before, people not being able to vote. I do not think anyone could seriously put the case that this amendment would deny anyone at all the possibility of exercising their franchise. I do think we should all share as an aspiration that that Saturday at the end of a polling period, where we get a large voter turnout and have sausage sizzles at schools and fundraising, be one of the great experiences of Australian democracy.

I once taught some overseas students in 1998. They were in Australia from America. When they were here for the 1998 election campaign they commented on the fact that in Australia it was very easy to vote compared to where they came from. With both prepolling and postal voting there was never an issue about being able to exercise the ballot. But there was also something about a limited time campaign of five or six weeks and then a balloting day on the Saturday allowing most people to attend, unlike a working day, as it is in some other parts of the world. It is a strength of our democracy. I do not think we are strengthening it by extending the prepoll period. I think we are potentially weakening it.