Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I don't quite understand how somehow it is inconsistent to have compulsory voting and voter ID requirements to ensure the integrity of the voting process when there are about 20 jurisdictions in the world that have got compulsory voting—including the jurisdiction in which I was born, where I grew up and first exercised my right to vote. And, let me tell you, we had to show our identification card before we were able to vote, and that was not in any way problematic. The government, of course, is on the record as saying that we support voter identification as a way to manage the risk of multiple voting, which I have absolutely no doubt has occurred over the years and throughout history.

Having said all of that, this bill actually doesn't come anywhere near, in any way, shape or form, introducing voter ID requirements; in fact, the bill does the opposite. This bill allows greater flexibility for polling officials about how they can word the three mandatory questions before they hand out a ballot paper. This is intended to particularly help the AEC communicate with voters who face language barriers or disability issues. The three questions are about name, address and whether someone has voted previously in the same election—reasonable questions, I would have thought. Nowhere in the bill is there any new fourth question permitting an official to ask a voter for ID documents.

So, on that basis, this is an entirely superfluous amendment. The amendment is based on a totally factually incorrect reading of the bill and an incorrect understanding of the Electoral Act. The amendment is partly predicated on an assumption that the AEC will do a poor job of training its staff, including senior officers, at each booth. We think it is not required and the government will oppose this amendment.