Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021. I indicate at the outset that Labor will not be supporting this bill. The bill seeks to do two things: it introduces a system of routine auditing of software used by the Australian Electoral Commission and it requires voters to present identification when they go to vote. I'll address the auditing provisions first. The bill requires the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of technology twice during an electoral cycle—at least seven days before the voting commences in a federal election and within 60 days after the return of the writs for a federal election. The bill also requires the Australian Signals Directorate to prevent and disrupt any interference with the cyberintegrity of federal elections.

This bill leaves one with the impression that our electoral system is dangerously exposed. But nothing could be further from the truth. The parliament should not give credence to baseless fears. For this parliament to do so would create a false impression that there is a problem, when there simply isn't. Irresponsible politicians in the United States have undermined their own institutions by promoting bizarre conspiracy theories about the conduct of elections. Australia's independent electoral system is the envy of Western democracies around the world. It will surprise no-one in this place to know that it was a Labor government, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke, that established the independent Australian Electoral Commission. The Labor government did this in 1984, at the same time as it introduced transparent political donation systems requiring that political donations above the figure of $1,000 be disclosed. Madam Deputy President, as you would know, that's blown out to $14,500 under successive Liberal governments, and it's Labor policy to bring the threshold back to that $1,000, because we are the party of transparency. Labor will never allow the weakening of the AEC or the undermining of this process.

Ensuring the integrity of elections is at the AEC's core. That is why the commission already has robust systems in place. The bill requires involvement of the Australian Signals Directorate, but the AEC already works with the ASD and other cybersecurity agencies to ensure the integrity of our systems and its compliance with the Commonwealth cybersecurity guidelines. The Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce has also been established to protect our democracy from foreign interference, disinformation and electoral fraud. There have been multiple independent audits and tests of the AEC's counting and its distribution-of-preference software. These have found no issues with the integrity of the vote count. We also shouldn't forget the important safeguards to the system that ordinary scrutineers provide. Scrutineers can view and challenge the count—and, indeed, very frequently do—including the scanning of ballot papers and the processing of all digital ballot paper images. In a further effort for transparency, the seat-by-seat results of our elections are published on the AEC's virtual tally room. This allows anyone to view the results in every seat and verify those results.

This bill was referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The bipartisan recommendation of that committee was that the bill not be passed. This was based on submissions received by the committee which identified several issues with the bill. The Australian National Audit Office, which had been tasked with conducting audits required by this bill, argued that the auditing function is best left to the AEC in support of its mandate. The ANAO submission noted that the ANAO already has the powers to audit the AEC's systems and processes. The ANAO also noted that, as an independent statutory authority, the AEC is oversighted by the parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The JSCEM has the power to inquire into all aspects of the AEC's operations and conduct of electoral events. Lastly, the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns can hear petitions disputing the validity of election results.

We deliberately have an independent and robust electoral system in Australia. We should pass legislation not based on unsubstantiated fear but, rather, based on fact. Senator Roberts is always talking about the facts, as I recall, so let's base our judgements here not on unsubstantiated fear but on the facts. Let's go through the facts. There's no issue with the integrity of the AEC, and we should support it to do its important job rather than seek to publicly undermine it.

The second major amendment the bill seeks to make is to introduce voter ID laws. Voter ID laws have been consistently opposed by the Australian Labor Party. We will never support them, for the simple reason that they undermine our compulsory voting system and discourage some people from exercising their democratic rights. It's a simple thing for us here to produce identification. We have it readily available. That's not the case for some more vulnerable members of our community. People living in remote Indigenous communities do not always have identification, and it's always problematic for homeless people and those escaping domestic violence. Voting is a fundamental right that comes with Australian citizenship. We cannot allow the erosion of that right by allowing people to be turned away from the polling places because they can't produce ID on that day. Wouldn't you agree, Senator McGrath?

Oh, okay. Why am I surprised!

In an attempt to address the situation in which people don't have ordinary forms of ID, the bill allows a voter to produce a community identity document. The bill empowers the Australian Electoral Commission to prescribe the form of such a document In her submission to the committee's inquiry, constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey, a very good professor, said that, even with this allowance, 'the additional procedural burden, the effort required, the confusion that it can create and the message that it sends of being "suspect" or unwanted may be enough to suppress the vote'. Professor Twomey points to the evidence in the United States, which shows that voter ID laws suppress the vote among ethnic minorities, producing a clear partisan distortion favouring conservative candidates. We don't want that in Australia. The Australian Human Rights Commission noted the low Indigenous enrolment rate of approximately 78 per cent. The AHRC said, 'It is vital to avoid steps that would impede the progress made to increase rates of Indigenous participation in our elections.'

Voter ID laws would place an unreasonable burden on the AEC. They would require more staff at polling booths and place them in the invidious position of policing ID and assessing its authenticity. This would significantly slow down in-person voting, which could also have the impact of disenfranchising voters.

All of that aside, multiple voting in Australia is simply not an issue. It barely happens, and certainly not in an organised, deliberate way. Most instances of multiple voting are of older or infirm people who have simply forgotten that they've already voted. In his submission to the committee's inquiry, Professor Graeme Orr said, 'Voter ID in Australia is a solution in search of a problem.' The Electoral Commission has described the number of multiple voters as 'vanishingly small'. The few instances of multiple voting that we have had never affected the outcome of an election. Given this, it is simply not worth the risk of disenfranchising thousands and thousands of Australians.

The bill's explanatory memorandum claims it is acting on a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following its inquiry into the 2019 federal election. Coalition members of JSCEM have consistently recommended voter ID laws, which Labor members have consistently opposed. Labor members of JSCEM wrote dissenting reports for the inquiries into the 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections, voicing their opposition to voter ID laws. So, while it is a recommendation of JSCEM, it's important to note that it was not a bipartisan recommendation—which, generally speaking, is the way in which that particular committee works, and for good reason.

The government recently had the opportunity to legislate to implement voter ID laws, but, knowing that those laws would never have the support of Labor, instead chose to create a designated elector register. Voters against whom the Electoral Commission has a reasonable suspicion of voting more than once in an election will be placed on the designated elector register. Designated electors are only able to vote by declaration vote, ensuring that only one vote is counted. This will address any instances of multiple voting, and, as such, the introduction of a voter ID law is entirely unnecessary. In addition, the AEC is rolling out more and more electronic certified lists, against which voters' names are marked when they attend the polling place. At Senate estimates in March this year, the Electoral Commissioner talked about the impact that electronic certified lists are having on the very few instances of multiple voting:

The use of electronic certified lists will certainly aid in eliminating the incidents of multiple marks and mistakes at the point of voting. That is certainly the case as we deploy more and more ECLs, as we call them. That will have a significant impact on that issue.

So Labor will not be supporting this bill. In closing, I'd like to thank the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for their work on the inquiry into this bill, especially Senators Kitching and Watt and, in particular, the deputy chair, Senator Tim Ayres. Your thoughtful consideration of these issues is appreciated.