Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The first thing I'd like to do in relation to this contribution on these important bills is to respond to some of the issues Senator Waters, the Greens senator from my home state of Queensland, made during her contribution to the debate.

The first is that, supposedly, this legislation is being rammed through this place. I've heard this line so many times from Senator Waters. I always find it quite ironic when someone makes that claim after they have just given a 15-minute speech in relation to why they oppose the legislation. These bills are going through exactly the right process, the process that you would expect. Everyone in this chamber is providing views and different thoughts with respect to these bills. We've just heard Senator Griff, a senator from South Australia I greatly admire, give a crossbencher view. We've heard from Senator Waters, Senator Farrell, Senator Brown and my colleague Senator O'Sullivan, from Western Australia. Everyone's getting an opportunity to make a contribution on these bills, representing the whole gamut of philosophical views. This legislation is not being rammed through this place; that is simply incorrect.

The second point I want to make is to note that so many of the reforms contained in these bills went through the joint parliamentary committee process. We're now less than 12 months out from an election, and we're taking into account the reflections from the last election. So this is entirely appropriate. I'm not sure when Senator Waters would expect us to consider these bills. It would be highly inappropriate to consider them after the next election. We need to get this done, and there is some urgency in relation to it. I just want to place that on the record.

In that spirit, I do want to acknowledge the very good contributions—and I sat here and listened to them—from Senator Farrell and Senator Brown in relation to this debate. I think a lot of good points were made. I do respect the contributions that others have made, including those of Senator Griff.

The first bill is the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021, which deals with the number requirement for party membership and also party names and logos. I don't think it is unreasonable for the minimum number of members of a party, which was first set in 1984, to be adjusted in 2021. I think people listening to this debate would understand that the Australian population has grown and, therefore, the membership qualification for party registration—which does give privileges to the registered party, a point Senator Brown made—should change; it should be adjusted. That seems clear and obvious to me. It seems reasonable, proportionate and democratic. I think it is quite a reasonable proposition.

I would like to say to everyone listening to this debate: join a political party; get involved in the political process. I'd love to it be my party, but, if you don't agree with my views, join another political party. Get involved in the process. I say that to everyone—young people, older people, our multicultural community. Get involved in a political party.

This month is the 50th anniversary of Senator Neville Bonner being sworn in as a senator in this place. Senator Neville Bonner first got involved in the political process when he joined the One Mile branch of the Liberal Party in Ipswich. He got elected as a branch office bearer, then as a delegate to convention. He then ran for preselection. He was unsuccessful the first time, but he ran again and was successful. That's what party membership can lead to. So, everyone out there listening to this debate, get involved in a political party. Fight for your beliefs and values. Let your voice be heard. I'd love it to be my party, but I expect not everyone is going to join my political party. That's why we're a multiparty state. But get involved. It's extremely important.

The second aspect of the party registration integrity bill, the first bill I'm discussing, is this important point about party names and logos. I don't think there can be any reasonable counter to the proposition that there have been clear instances where voters have been confused because key words in party names have been similar, or the same, so, when voters go and cast their vote, they vote for one party, reasonably believing it's another party. That undermines the efficacy and integrity of our election process. So it is absolutely fair and reasonable that there are checks and balances in the system. And let me flip that over and say it would be a failure of this house, of this Senate, if we didn't have checks and balances in the system to prevent that.

I can remember sitting and watching the draw for the ballot paper on the Senate ticket in Queensland in the lead-up to the last federal election, hoping and praying—and I'll put this on the public record—that the Liberal National Party had a position on the 'tablecloth' Senate ballot which was to the left—physically speaking, not philosophically—of the Liberal Democratic Party. Why? Not because I wanted to do anything to prevent anyone who in good faith wanted to vote for the Liberal Democratic Party but because I know, and the statistics prove decisively—and Senator O'Sullivan, my colleague from Western Australia, spoke to this point—that, if the Liberal Democratic Party is to the left of the Liberal National Party or the Liberal Party, voters get confused. They see that word 'Liberal' and they assume it's referring to my party, and we can understand that. That issue is escalated especially in our multicultural communities.

This is a question of integrity. There needs to be a check and balance. If there is the same key word in the names of two competing political parties and there's a previously registered party that first uses that key word, it is fair and reasonable that a subsequent party be prevented from undertaking a course of action which will mislead the Australian voter or a goodly number of them. That is fair and reasonable.

Again, I'll flip it around and say we would not be discharging our obligation to this place, to the Australian voters, to maintaining the integrity of the election system, if we were not to support a proposition like this. People in this country have a right to vote for whatever party they want, but let's make sure, let's make it clear, that they know who they're voting for and they're not misled. That's what this reform achieves, so I commend this bill to the Senate.

The second bill is the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill, and it deals with three issues: the prepoll voting period, the sorting of prepoll voting ballots and postal voting. First I want to talk about the prepoll voting period. I'm going to give a big shout-out here to one of the leading academics in relation to the study of elections, Dr Paul Williams, from Griffith University, in my home state of Queensland. He is an outstanding academic and makes a considerable contribution to discussion with respect to election matters. He coined the phrase, following the last Queensland election, 'We don't have an election day anymore; we have an election period.' If you've got a three-week prepoll period, that means you've got a three-week election period, which just makes it logistically incredibly hard to actually do all the things you need to do as political parties—and voters, including consideration of policies and competing arguments. It makes it incredibly hard to get through and do all the things you need to do before the commencement of that election period. So this reform, this proposition, is reasonable, it is proportionate, and it is common sense that the prepoll period become a 12-day period.

I can remember, and Senator Brown probably remembers, the time when you could only vote prepoll if you couldn't make a polling booth on election day, and they would actually ask you when you went into the polling booth: 'Why do you need to vote today? Why can't you vote on election day?' But the world's changed. We are not going to change it; people like their convenience and that's fine. We should maximise the opportunity for people to vote, and a 12-day prepoll period is an appropriate and reasonable balance in providing people with that opportunity.

The second reform in this bill is the sorting of prepoll votes. It should be recognised that some prepoll voting centres at the last federal election took upwards of 25,000 votes—25,000 votes! I have never scrutineered at a booth that's taken 25,000 votes. I can't imagine what that is like. When they tip out the voting papers they would just about be submerged under the weight of ballot papers. The AEC need time to unfold and sort, and the two-hour period before the closing of polls provides an appropriate time for them to be able to do that. Bear in mind that at the last election there were 149 prepoll centres that took upwards of 10,000 votes. So this is an issue that has arisen in recent times and it is attached to that concept of an election period as opposed to an election date. Again, this is a commonsense reform—reasonable and proportionate.

The last issue dealt with in this bill is postal voting. Following the last Queensland election I was provided with the 'opportunity' by the Liberal National Party to do the review of the Queensland state election. I think it was, to some extent, a situation where they asked for volunteers and everyone else who was asked took one step backwards. When we went through that process, one of the issues we identified was that there were upwards of 50,000 postal votes declared invalid at the last Queensland state election. A lot of people were trying to vote using a postal vote because of the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the issues was that it was just too complicated for people to work out: 'I've got to fill out my ballot paper. I've got to put in it this envelope. I've got to sign that. I've got to put this envelope in that envelope, make sure I get all that right and then get it posted and pray that Australia Post delivers the thing.' It was just too complicated, and if people made a small error then their vote was discounted. They were disenfranchised for that small administrative error, and that should not be the case. People should not be disenfranchised for a small administrative error. So, again, this is a fair and reasonable reform which will enhance the opportunity for people to participate in our electoral process.

The third bill is the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021. I want to talk about this issue of intimidation because it is a really important one. I have seen the atmosphere on polling booths change in the 34 to 35 years I have been involved in the political process—and I have been involved since I was 17, so people can work out how old I am. We are at our best as a nation on election day, when people with competing views attend our polling booths to spruik their views, to represent their parties, to represent their values and to engage in courteous, polite discourse at the polling booth while respecting everyone's rights and liberties. That's when we're at our best and that is what we need to aspire to. We are at our worst when people attend polling booths and intentionally set about intimidating, stalking, using obscenities and interfering with the democratic process. The people who typically do that are the people who don't have confidence in their own views, because they can't win the argument without that intimidation. We need to protect Australia's voting system from that sort of base intimidation, so I support that part of the bill.

Lastly, the last element in the omnibus package that's being put up is the issue of a designated elector. These can be sad cases where someone has repeatedly tried to vote more than once, or they have voted more than once, and there's a process there, with appropriate rights of appeal, for them to be allowed to make a declaration vote. They can still participate, but there are checks and balances. (Time expired)