Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I indicate at the outset that Labor supports this bill, which contains measures arising from the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related to it. I want to make the point that this bill is the second layer of changes that have been introduced by the government with respect to the recommendations of the report. Whilst Labor is happy to support the particular amendments before the chamber, it must be emphasised that the earlier legislation which was passed through this place with the support of the government senators introduced some very regressive measures which altered Australia’s electoral system. Those measures were clearly introduced by the government to try and seek partisan political advantage.

It is worth remembering some of the key aspects of the changes which this government previously pushed through the chamber. First is the early closure of the electoral roll, which will now close for most new enrollees on the day the writs are issued. This will give existing enrollees only three days to correct their details. If this measure had been put in place for the last election, up to 80,000 Australians might have been unable to enrol to vote. Up to 280,000 people in total could have been affected by having a substantial fault on their enrolment. The electoral changes which were pushed through by the Howard government also introduced far greater identity requirements for enrolment, which have the potential to disenfranchise many Australians.

There are new requirements for provisional voters to prove their identity. Voters on election day who are not listed on the electoral roll are currently able to cast a provisional vote. After election day the bona fides of these ballots are investigated by the AEC and, if they should be admitted to the count, they are. The government intends to force those who cast a provisional vote to provide additional proof of identity. We should know that over 180,000 Australians cast provisional votes at the last election. So, the government with its previous amendments pushed through increased restrictions on people’s ability to vote. Certainly the early closure of the rolls, which was pushed through in this place, will potentially disenfranchise a great many young people. Why is the government so intent on putting in place measures which will make it more difficult for many young Australians to cast a vote?

However, as you will recall, on the last occasion that a related bill was before the chamber, that legislation made it far easier to donate large sums of money to a political party without any public scrutiny whatsoever. For example, there was an increase in the declarable limit for disclosure of political donations to $10,000, and there has an increase in tax deductibility for political donations from $100 to $1,500. In other words, the previous approach taken by the government in the 2006 legislation made it harder to vote but easier to donate.

Having said that, the bill before the chamber deals with a range of other issues which Labor does support. It contains amendments for the expansion of postal vote provisions for ADF and AFP personnel, revised arrangements for the delivery of postal voting material, an increase in the number of AEC officers who are eligible to receive postal vote envelopes, the introduction of trials for electronically assisted voting for the visually impaired, and remote electronic voting for ADF personnel deployed overseas. Additionally, the bill proposes to repeal defamation provisions that carry criminal actions and penalties for defamation against electoral candidates.

The committee’s report recommended that the Commonwealth Electoral Act be amended to specifically permit ADF and AFP personnel serving overseas to become general postal voters. These people will automatically be sent ballot papers for each election without first having to lodge a postal vote application, giving them more time to return their postal vote. The act currently provides that an application should be regarded as not having been made if it reaches the AEC officer after 6 pm on the day prior to polling day—a Friday. This bill repeals that provision and substitutes a new provision to provide that the deadline by which postal vote applications must be received in order to be processed is 6 pm on the Thursday—that is, two days before polling day. As I understand it, the intention behind these amendments is to enhance the prospect of postal voters receiving postal voting material in time for completion on or before polling day.

The bill also inserts a new subsection that provides that, for postal voting applications received after the new deadline, the commission is required to make reasonable efforts to contact those applicants to advise them that their applications have not met the deadline and of the need for them to vote by other means. This gives effect to the government’s response to part of recommendation 9 of the committee’s report. The act currently provides that an elector who casts a postal vote shall post or deliver the completed postal voting envelope on which the postal vote certificate is printed to the appropriate DRO. Where it is unlikely that the completed envelope could reach the appropriate DRO within 13 days after polling day, the act currently allows for the envelope to be returned to other AEC officers.

This bill expands the range of officers who can receive completed postal voting envelopes in order to provide postal voters with greater flexibility and options for returning their voting material in time to be included in the scrutiny. The range of officers who will now be able to receive completed postal voting envelopes will include electoral visitors at hospitals and prisons, mobile polling team leaders, and certain office holders and ongoing employees of the AEC’s capital city offices.

The bill also inserts into the act trials of electronic voting methods. It includes the provision for a trial of electronically assisted voting for sight-impaired Australians and a trial of remote electronic voting for Defence personnel serving outside Australia. I understand that electronic voting for sight-impaired people was trialled in six locations at the Victorian state election. Initial advice from the Victorian Electoral Commission was that the trial certainly provided significant advantages for sight-impaired people. However, Labor also understands that the number of people who participated in the trial was less than had been hoped. I understand that my colleague the shadow special minister of state will be obtaining further advice from the VEC about the trial and that a report will be provided to the Victorian parliament.

The trial of remote electronic voting for Defence personnel will be rolled out on Defence’s secure network and will include approximately 1,500 people. The government has indicated it may consider extending the trial, as recommended by the committee, but as yet has made no commitments. Under this proposed trial method there will be a printed record of the vote a person has cast. Once a person has cast an electronically assisted vote, the vote record will be placed in an envelope upon which a completed declaration has been made. Information on the outside of the envelope will enable preliminary scrutiny of the votes to take place. This will not be capable of identifying the elector, consistent with the process adopted for prepoll. The vote record produced at the prepoll voting office will not be required to be an exact replication of the ballot paper in order to ensure the secrecy of the vote is maintained. However, the vote record will and must be capable of producing a document, whether it is a replication of the ballot paper or otherwise, that accurately reflects the voter’s intention for scrutiny purposes. I indicate that Labor fully supports this initiative and welcomes the opportunities that new technologies provide in assisting people to vote.

Apart from these primary reforms, there are also a number of other minor amendments. These relate to, for example, alternative documentary evidence which may be supplied by people enrolling from overseas, under sections 94A and 95 of the act. Such persons will now be given the option of supplying either their Australian passport number or their driver’s licence number as documentary evidence of their name. Under the bill the commission will also be able to establish a prepoll voting office when, due to exceptional circumstances, it would not be possible to gazette the declaration prior to commencement of the operation of the prepoll voting office. This provision will operate as an exception to the general requirement to gazette prepoll voting offices. This will allow prepoll voting offices to be established in circumstances where the AEC is required to quickly ensure that electors are able to cast votes. It will still be required to publish a copy of the declaration in the gazette as soon as practicable.

As I indicated at the outset, this bill also repeals provisions which make it an offence for a person to make or publish any false and defamatory statement in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate. Such cases of defamation will instead be dealt with in accordance with the civil law of defamation existing in the relevant state or territory jurisdiction. This will bring candidate defamation actions in line with existing legislation and common law. This item gives effect to another recommendation of the committee report.

This legislation does have some important reforms designed to enhance the operation of our system to provide people with a greater opportunity to be able to cast a vote. With electronic assistance voting, allowing Defence Force personnel to register as general postal voters, and providing different provisions in terms of who can receive postal votes after they have been filled in, there are aspects of this legislation which will provide people with a greater capacity to participate in the democratic process. However, as I said at the outset, this bill stands in direct contrast to the last bill in this area that the Howard government brought forward in response to the joint committee’s recommendations. That bill produced a number of changes that made it harder for some sections of Australian society to vote.

One of the main changes, which has been much talked about and to which I referred earlier, in the previous bill was the early closure of the electoral roll. There is no doubt that closing the roll early may produce an administrative nightmare, with people being incorrectly enrolled. There is also no doubt that it is likely to lead to a large number of people being excluded from being able to cast a valid vote. This has the capacity to impinge upon the operation of Australia’s democracy. As I said earlier, if the changes the government forced through with its previous bill had been in place during the last election, up to 80,000 Australians might have been unable to enrol to vote and up to 280,000 Australians could have been affected by a substantial fault in their enrolment.

I want to make some comments about the position that the AEC has taken in relation to the new measures concerning early closure of the rolls. The AEC chose to support these changes, which contrasts with the position that previous electoral commissioners have held over the last decade. In response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2004 election, the electoral commentator Antony Green stated:

If suddenly the election is called two or three months early, people will not have regularised their enrolment. You will cut young people off, as the numbers show ...

On previous occasions when these sorts of proposals were put forward by this government, they were rejected by the commission. Previous commissioners have indicated that this approach was not a good idea for Australian democracy. Among the concerns expressed by previous commissioners are the concerns that the Labor Party raised in relation to the specific amendments, and many independent experts have voiced similar views. However, the current electoral commissioner has clearly changed his view and has made that clear to the parliament.

Labor remain extremely concerned about the approach the government took in its previous legislation. Figures in the AEC annual report showed that, for the first time in nearly a decade, the total enrolment in the Australian electoral system actually went down. I understand that, at recent Senate estimates, the commission indicated there was some concern about what that meant. Labor are concerned as to how well the commission will be able to administer the electoral roll, given that there is clear evidence of real problems with the current system. The issue remains a great concern and there are still states and territories where roll numbers are declining.

As I indicated earlier, other changes pushed through by the Howard government include much stricter identity requirements for enrolment. The new requirements will make it harder for people to enrol and harder for people to be able to cast a valid vote. We can see that from the requirement for provisional voters to provide identification on election day. This is despite the fact that the government has acknowledged, and ministers have repeatedly acknowledged, that there is not an issue with fraud within the Australian electoral system.

Unlike the previous legislation, the bill before the chamber makes the vote more accessible to a number of Australians. It is unfortunate that it comes on the back of legislation which made the vote less accessible for a number of Australians, particularly those whose enrolment details have changed and young people, who often do not enrol or update their details until an election is called.

This legislation can be described as a small step forward, but it is a small step forward after the massive leap backwards that occurred with the legislation that the government pushed through in 2006. As I said at the outset, Labor are supporting this legislation. We do remain extremely concerned about the way in which the government treated electoral matters in its previous legislation. We have already stated that we believe the government put forward its previous changes with a clear view about how they might benefit it in a partisan sense.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 is the government’s second legislative response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related thereto, which came out in September 2005. I have some knowledge of this. The committee was established in 1983 and I have been a member continuously for about 11 years, so I am probably coming close to being the longest continuously serving member of that committee.

This committee really extracted its digit on this inquiry. Previously the committee had considered that a three-year electoral cycle did not necessitate quick reporting, but on this 2004 election report the committee thought there was a need to report quickly to give the government and the Australian Electoral Commission as much time as possible to respond and introduce legislation. It is a signal, really, of a broader problem that we face in the parliament. The committee reported in September 2005; 17 months later we are debating a bill which deals with non-contentious, unanimous recommendations. It does take an awfully long time to get these matters considered and passed by parliament.

However, here we are with this bill before us. This is a far better bill, I might say, than the regressive measures passed last year in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill. That was simply a very bad bill. I noticed that, although Labor opposed that bill—I will use them as an example—the number of donations declared by the Western Australian Labor Party diminished from 40, 50 or 60 in the six months to report under the old system to about five or six under the new system. What has happened is that this government has ended the disclosure and transparency that we enjoyed under the previous system. I emphasise that that bill was opposed by the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens.

The provisions of this particular bill were referred for inquiry to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which has provided a unanimous report. The bill seeks to provide a trial of electronically assisted voting for sight-impaired people and a remote electronic voting trial for Australian Defence Force members and Defence civilians serving outside Australia. It allows ADF members and Federal Police personnel outside Australia and eligible overseas voters to apply for registration as postal voters. It provides that the deadline for postal vote applications is to be 6 pm on the Thursday prior to polling day. It amends arrangements for the delivery of postal voting material by the Australian Electoral Commission and expands the range of AEC officers who can receive postal vote envelopes. The bill amends the requirements for the establishment of pre-poll voting centres so that they can be quickly established by the AEC in special circumstances. The bill amends provisions relating to enrolment from outside Australia to allow applicants the option of providing an Australian passport number rather than a current drivers licence number, as under the current proof of identity scheme. The bill repeals the section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act relating to defamation of electoral candidates because defamation is covered in the general law.

That last item is a signal of much that is right with the committee system. A particular individual, Mr W Bowe, made a submission to the committee. He had been subject to litigation under section 350, the defamation section, as a website publisher. He maintained that the legislation was anachronistic in a modern communications environment and recommended it be removed from the Electoral Act. There were others who took an interest in this matter, such as Professor Quiggin, but the fact is that the committee listened to Mr Bowe with great attention. Section 12.44 of the report says:

Senator Andrew Murray also supported the removal of the section, or its amendment to include a clause making it clear that defamatory material had significantly affected the outcome of an election. This might facilitate prosecution of defamatory political comment on the internet through the Court of Disputed Returns, which handles allegations of corruption of the electoral process.

The committee had to consider this: you either remove the defamation section altogether and give it to the general law, and the general law covers criminal actions and penalties for defamation, or you strengthen it. We decided on the former and the government has agreed with us. That is, if you like, a sign of the committee process working well and unanimously for an outcome.

In contrast to what was ironically framed as the electoral integrity bill, the Australian Democrats welcome this bill. We welcome it because it has the effect of actually enfranchising voters and takes the machinery of the electoral process forward. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill passed last year had the reverse effect: it disenfranchised voters. Amongst other things, it targeted those who are least able to defend themselves. It took away the democratic right to vote from all those serving a term of imprisonment. My belief is that, if you want to give judges the power to apply jail as a penalty, you can. But to take away one of the rights of a citizen because they have been incarcerated is a double penalty and it is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The electoral integrity bill also had the effect of disenfranchising more voters through closing the electoral rolls on the day the election writs are issued, so a 66-year-old working system was done away with. No longer will 18-year-olds and those wishing to register or change their registration details have seven days to do so. Arguably again, the hundreds of thousands possibly affected were thought by the coalition to most likely vote for Labor or minor parties. I do not think it was an integrity issue at all; I think it was a partisan political issue.

However, this new bill establishes a framework for two electronic voting trials at the coming federal election. One will allow for visually impaired people to cast a secret ballot and the second, as I have said, will allow Australian Defence Force personnel and Defence civilians serving overseas to cast an electronic vote. Those trials are a forward step for our democracy. However, the trial will only be available for the visually impaired at 30 locations across the whole of Australia. This does not accord with the standing committee’s recommendation that such centres should be available in each electorate. I accept that this is a trial and, if successful—and I cannot see why it should not be—I hope that the trial will see this process established in all electorates. I trust that it will be resourced sufficiently to achieve that aim, because true equality requires that such a service be made available to other electors in need of such facilities.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission stated in its submission to the inquiry on the bill that it supported the bill but would like to see electronic voting made available to other similarly disabled electors, and quite rightly so. In this respect, HREOC referred to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory. It was pointed out that, apart from the right to vote in genuine periodic elections by secret ballot, the covenant also obliges political parties to adopt measures where required to give effect to these rights without discrimination of any kind. This of course obliges governments as well. Again, I trust that future governments—indeed, I encourage future governments to—will facilitate further the universal right of all our citizens to cast a secret ballot.

The second electronic trial for Australian Defence Force personnel overseas is an excellent move. Those women and men serving overseas, often away from their families, deserve every possible facility to enable them to cast a vote.

The other technical provisions of the bill relate to deadlines of postal voting applications and the manner in which postal voting materials and votes are managed. It is envisaged that these measures will provide greater flexibility and options for the return of postal votes in time for inclusion in the count.

Also provided, in accordance with proof of identity requirements introduced in June of last year, are amendments that will allow those enrolling to vote from outside Australia to provide an Australian passport number rather than a current drivers licence number.

As the bill reflects unanimous recommendations, we obviously support it. It will have acceptance in the community. On that point, I would like now to urge that the Commonwealth government examine further reforms to the Commonwealth Electoral Act arising from the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There are many areas that they can look at, but there is an area I would like to look at arising from my supplementary remarks to the JSCEM report. It is something I have pushed for many years and I think it will have considerable consequences for our democracy. What prompts me to raise the issue in this way is what has been happening in my home state of Western Australia, now known as ‘Burke’s backyard’. Former Labor Premier Brian Burke has been up to his antics again. One would have hoped that both Mr Burke and Western Australia would have learnt something from the consequences of the WA Inc. saga.

It seems that his lucrative lobbying business has been booming and he and others are now under investigation by the WA Corruption and Crime Commission concerning underhand tactics to get up some controversial development deals for his clients. There are allegations of the handing over of undisclosed funds from developers to bribe government officials. For example, the general manager of property developer Australands’s WA division admitted in evidence that, in concert with Mr Burke, an independent interest group was used as a vehicle for advancing partisan commercial interests. Allegedly, such funds were used to finance the re-election campaign of a pro-development mayor. Mr Burke is also alleged to have been instrumental in securing other development deals that also appear to have campaign funds linked to them for some individuals.

Evidence has been tendered that the principles of cabinet government are under threat through ministers being named as sources of confidential cabinet information for Mr Burke and his clients. Former WA Minister for Small Business Norm Marlborough, apparently under evidence, was exposed as giving regular cabinet updates to his longstanding friend Mr Burke. He was quite rightly sacked by Mr Carpenter, the current Premier, for doing so. That does not seem to have mattered, as Mr Burke still claims to have his plants in cabinet. Another two ministers have been nominated but not named in this process.

The reason I raise this in the context of the electoral bill is that these are the sorts of issues that I raised in my supplementary remarks to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 2004 federal election. They concern issues of political governance. If the government is going to respond to that report, I think it should have a look at what I had to say, because the problem with the media coverage of the Burke issue right now in WA is that they are awfully excited about the scandal and the revelations, and are enjoying no end the scalps that are found in the process. But when it is all over, we have to remember that firing a few ministers will not solve the problem. We also have to remember that the vast majority of Labor members and Labor parliamentarians do not support this activity either, and they need to be given a leg-up in solving these problems and ensuring they do not recur. That can only happen legislatively.

I strongly urge that donations from developers, which are much loved by all levels of government, be banned. They threaten the very integrity of our political system. They are the subject of crime and corruption commissions in every state. I recall former Prime Minister Paul Keating just last year calling for their banning. Sadly, it is the case that our democracy will continue to encourage corruption and undue influence for as long as donations like that are permitted. Of course, it is made worse by the passing last year of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill, whereby secret donations can now be made in multiple tranches provided they are under $10,000. So, roll on donors, your money will buy you access and influence, and there are so many ways you can donate handsomely and anonymously.

If ever the day arises where strings attached to donations are prohibited, as they are in some democracies, it will be a time for us to celebrate an advance in our Australian democracy. The details of my arguments are in my supplementary remarks to the joint standing committee’s report but, essentially, I urge Premier Carpenter to put accountability, integrity and transparency front and centre for the government in Western Australia. I urge him to introduce political governance, which would mean that political parties are at least subject to the public accountability regime that applies to listed corporations and unions. At present they have less transparency than a local sports club.

The following are the minimum standards the media and the public should be demanding from Mr Carpenter. There should be a ban on donations from developers to political parties in local and state government, and of course in federal government. There should be stiff penalties for any donations with strings attached. Professional fundraising should be subject to the same disclosure rules applying to donations. Political parties should disclose who lies behind donations from trusts, foundations or clubs, or return the money. Donations or loans from foreign overseas individuals or overseas entities should be banned. Labor should be given back to the members by applying one vote, one value to the Labor Party to stop union bosses elected by non-Labor members deciding who Labor’s candidates will be. And political parties should produce an annual public report that fully details their financial statements, sources of their income and what it is spent on. A very wide range of individuals and organisations have called for a clampdown or banning of donations from developers. These sorts of donations threaten the integrity of our political system at every level.

My message to the media is that, whilst you and your readers may find the scandal enlightening and the heads that roll may be satisfying, in the end we have to fix the problem. Many, many Labor parliamentarians and many, many Labor members want to see this sort of slur on their party put away and not repeated. The only way to do that is to improve the standards of political governance, and the only way to do that is for Mr Carpenter to act and for the coalition government to act to improve the nature of the accountability mechanisms applying through the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which it has failed to do.

While I welcome this machinery bill, whilst I deplore its predecessor which passed in June 2006, I think the most important issue that we still face is getting political governance in this country up to the same speed as corporate governance and applying the same standards of accountability to our own political parties that we demand from corporations and unions. We would be much better for it.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. While Labor supports this particular bill, it would be remiss of me if I failed to point out the government’s protracted history of trying to disenfranchise many Australians when it comes to the electoral roll and related matters. This statement is not made lightly. I refer to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 as evidence supporting it—a bill that Labor did not support; another bill that this government used its Senate majority to get through this parliament last year; a bill that introduced some regressive measures which will have a detrimental impact on the Australian electoral system.

However, the bill before us today contains some of the reasonable measures that stem from the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on its inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and related matters. The legislation amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum Act 1984 and follows some reform measures introduced by the government in the controversial electoral and referendum amendment act to which I have already referred.

The bill we have before us contains provisions that will provide for a trial of electronically assisted voting for sight-impaired people; provide for a trial of remote electronic voting for Australian Defence Force members and Defence civilians serving outside Australia; specifically enable members of the Australian Defence Force and Australian Federal Police personnel serving outside Australia and persons registered as eligible overseas electors to apply for registration as general postal voters; and provide that the deadline for postal vote applications is 6 pm on the Thursday prior to polling day. The Australian Electoral Commission will not be required to post or deliver postal voting material to those electors whose postal vote applications are received after that. The Australian Electoral Commission will be required to make reasonable efforts to contact applicants whose postal vote applications are received after the deadline to advise them of the need to vote by other means.

The bill will also amend arrangements for the delivery of postal voting materials by the AEC, expand the range of AEC officers who can receive completed postal vote envelopes and amend the requirements for the establishment of pre-poll voting centres to enable them to be quickly established by the Australian Electoral Commission in exceptional circumstances. It will amend provisions relating to enrolment from outside Australia to allow applicants the option of providing an Australian passport number, rather than a current drivers licence number, to satisfy the requirements of the proof of identity scheme established by the electoral integrity act. And it will repeal section 350 of the Electoral Act, which relates to defamation of electoral candidates.

While I will not speak today on all of the provisions, I will take the opportunity to speak about the importance of several provisions which form this legislation. In accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the Commonwealth Electoral Act will be amended to specifically permit Australian Defence Force and Australian Federal Police personnel who are serving overseas to become general postal voters. Serving members deployed outside Australia will automatically be sent ballot papers for an election, without having to submit a postal vote application.

In addition, for the sight impaired, the legislation will provide provisions to trial electronic voting. A similar trial was conducted during the Victorian state election and, by all reports—certainly from the Victorian Electoral Commission—it was an overwhelming success. I point out that its success in the 2006 Victorian election was noted as being due to the accuracy of the system; however, I understand that they were disappointed with the number of people who engaged in the trial. This was attributed to a large proportion of sight-impaired people being elderly, and many being apprehensive about embracing the new technology. I understand from the Victorian Electoral Commission that a report due to be tabled in the Victorian parliament in May of this year will give us a formal assessment of how the trial went. It will be interesting to draw comparisons between the data from the Victorian election and the data from the federal election to be held later this year.

It is, however, unfortunate that the positive steps outlined in this bill are significantly overshadowed by the previous bill that made changes to the Electoral Act—legislation that without question has disenfranchised thousands of potential voters, thousands of Australian citizens. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 was an attack on the democratic process, and the government should stand condemned for it.

The Howard government has a lengthy history of trying to disenfranchise a broad cross-section of the population when it comes to voting. People with limited levels of education, people from a non-English-speaking background, young people and Indigenous Australians have all been the target of this government. That highly contentious piece of legislation will make it harder for people to enrol by making identity checks more complex. It will also make provisional voting far more difficult. This in particular is a controversial move—controversial because at the last federal election approximately 180,000 Australians cast provisional votes. Under the changes, the government is going to force those casting a provisional vote to provide additional proof of identity. They have always had to prove their identity but now they need additional proof. If they cannot do so, their vote will not count—tens of thousands of potential votes that will not count.

In addition, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006 narrowed the time gap for new enrollees wanting to get on the electoral roll. Again, the number of people that this may affect is significant. Eighty thousand people might not have been able to enrol in the last election if these laws had been in place at that time. Those on the roll will be given only three days to correct their details after the writs are issued for the forthcoming election. Indications are that up to 280,000 people could be affected by having a substantial fault in their enrolment.

In October last year, during Senate supplementary estimates, the Australian Electoral Commission admitted that they were very concerned about the fact that the electoral roll had dropped for the first time in a decade. The electoral roll figure at 30 June 2006 was down by 32,000 from the previous year. This was in direct contrast to the previous seven years, where the roll had increased by between 76,000 and 100,000 each year.

These figures are not due to the legislation we saw introduced in June last year. However, they are significant in this debate. If the roll is already in decline and the government has made it even more difficult to get on the roll, it is difficult to see how the numbers will start to go up to levels that accurately reflect eligibility.

Labor is all for ensuring that the electoral roll is accurate and that it is not abused. It has led the way when it comes to reform in this particular area, to make the electoral process fair and accessible. In the 1980s, Labor was responsible for the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, now known as the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—the very committee that recommended the changes that we are now discussing in the bill before us. As my colleague Senator Ray pointed out during the debate last year, it was Labor who brought in disclosure of donations. It was opposed by those opposite because they did not—and they still do not—want the voting public to know who donates to their campaigns. There are many more examples of Labor enhancing the democratic process with electoral reform which I will not go into today. Suffice it to say that Labor stands as the principal party of positive electoral reform.

Voting is a rite of passage for those in a democratic society. The system and the process that oversees this should be nurtured and be given every opportunity to thrive. Labor welcomes the vast majority of the measures in this bill, the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. They are positive reforms that arise from the report by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

It is unfortunate that these relatively small changes are standing in the huge shadow cast last year by the changes brought in by the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006—changes that will make it harder to cast a vote, harder to enrol to vote and harder to ensure that a vote is actually counted. The Electoral and Referendum Legislation Bill 2006 before us today makes some steps forward but, sadly, they follow a monumental leap backwards.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak briefly on the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. This bill is the second set of measures put before this chamber which seeks to make changes to the electoral system. The first set of measures introduced were regressive measures that limited the franchise by closing electoral rolls early, making it harder to enrol and raising the financial disclosure limit from $1,500 to $10,000, linked to the CPI. Increasingly, there is the capacity for donations to be made in secret—provisions rammed through parliament for base partisan political gain. This government was intent on and, I believe, accomplished its aim of making it harder to vote and easier to donate.

This bill, however—the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006—introduces provisions which the Labor Party supports. The provisions in the bill arise from the government’s response to the report by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the conduct of the 2004 federal election.

The bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration for inquiry and report by 20 February 2007. The committee received three submissions: from the Australian Electoral Commission, basically on the way the provisions will be implemented and operate; from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; and from the Department of Defence.

The bill, according to the explanatory memorandum, seeks to do six things. The first is introduce a limited form of electronic voting which will provide for a trial of electronically assisted voting for sight-impaired people and provide for a trial of remote electronic voting for Australian Defence Force members and Defence civilians serving outside Australia. The second is to make changes to the general postal voter registry. Specifically, it will enable members of the ADF and Australian Federal Police personnel serving outside Australia, and persons registered as eligible overseas electors, to apply for registration as general postal voters. The third is to make various changes to postal votes—specifically, to provide that the deadline for postal vote applications is 6 pm on the Thursday prior to polling day, to amend arrangements for the delivery of postal voting material by the AEC and to expand the range of AEC officers who can receive completed postal vote envelopes. The fourth is to change pre-poll arrangements by amending the requirements for the establishment of pre-poll voting centres to enable them to be quickly established by the AEC in exceptional circumstances. The fifth is to make changes to enrolments from outside Australia by amending provisions relating to enrolments from outside Australia to allow applicants the option of providing an Australian passport number rather than a current drivers licence number. The sixth is to repeal section 350 of the Electoral Act which relates to defamation of electoral candidates.

The submissions received were supportive of the provisions of the bill. The committee’s recommendation was that the Senate pass the bill.

I would like to touch on a number of elements of the bill in greater detail. Firstly, I would like to address the issue of electronic voting. In terms of electronic voting, the HREOC submission urged that:

… the Committee support the passage of the Bill; and support an extension of provision for electronic or electronically assisted voting at the earliest opportunity to include other people unable because of disability to complete a paper ballot independently and secretly.

The Committee took the view that:

… electronic assisted voting should be extended to electors requiring this facility to enable them to exercise the right to a secret ballot, provided trialling of this system proves to be successful.

The AEC outlined the operation of the proposed trials as follows:

The trial for sight-impaired people will require the AEC to develop an electronically assisted voting method that will produce a printed record of each vote cast.

… the electronically assisted voting method is expected to be available at up to 30 locations around Australia. These locations will utilise pre-poll voting centres so that sight-impaired electors would have an extended opportunity to avail themselves of the electronically assisted voting method if they so choose. A sight-impaired elector will be able to cast an electronically assisted vote in the lead up to polling day or on polling day itself.

The trial for particular defence personnel serving outside Australia will require the AEC to develop a remote electronic voting method for that purpose. In order to make use of the remote electronic voting method, eligible ADF members and defence civilians would first be required to be registered with the AEC as Remote Electronic Voters. The AEC will be required by the Bill to produce a printed record of each electronic vote received by the AEC.

I look forward with interest to the results of the electronic voting trials. Any reforms that seek to enable voters to exercise their democratic right to vote in secret and to extend the franchise should be supported, and it is hoped that the trials are successful and can be rolled out extensively so that electronically assisted voting may include other people unable to complete a paper ballot in secret because of disability.

The proposals that I have outlined regarding changes to the general postal voting registry allow ADF and AFP personnel overseas to enrol to become general postal voters, which simply means that they will automatically be sent ballot papers without first having to request them—a straightforward and sensible amendment. The various changes made with regard to postal voting seek to change the postal vote deadline from the Friday before election day to the Thursday before election day, allowing the AEC more time to ensure that ballot papers reach electors in time for them to complete the papers on or before polling day. The Australian Electoral Commission will not be required to post or deliver postal voting material to those electors whose postal vote applications are received after that time. However, the AEC will be required to make reasonable efforts to contact applicants whose postal vote applications are received after the deadline to advise them of the need to vote by other means.

The amendments also seek to expand the range of AEC officers who can receive postal votes. The range will include electoral visitors at hospitals and prisons, mobile polling team leaders and office holders, and ongoing employees of the AEC. This expansion will provide voters more options and flexibility for returning postal votes.

These amendments are worth while and very welcome. As I said earlier, the trialling of electronic voting is indeed a very exciting initiative. However, this government took a very different position on the first round of measures introduced through the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006, debated in the Senate in June 2006. These changes were widely condemned by the Labor Party, community leaders and independent experts—and rightly so. Those changes, for the first time in Australian electoral history, wound back the franchise and attempted to hide from the public who is donating to political parties. By raising the financial disclosure threshold, you hide the dollars, and transparency is lost. You lose the essential checks and balances on the activities of political parties. It is a shameful measure that has been introduced to fill the coffers of the Liberal and National parties and hide the origin of the donations from public view.

Following the 2005-06 disclosure declarations by political parties, on 2 February 2007 the Herald Sun reported:

Overall direct political donations of $74 million for 2005-06 were well down on the $160 million that flooded the coffers of the major parties in the 2004-05 election year.

Well down—a difference of $86 million.

The closure of the rolls sooner after the writs is of great concern. It potentially disenfranchises voters and there is little benefit to be derived from making these changes other than, as I have said, for base political advantage. These changes were introduced despite the potential that existed for them to cause considerable damage to our democracy. We should remind ourselves that, whilst the provisions in this bill are supported and welcomed by the Labor Party, they by no means right the unfairness introduced by the provisions in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006. I support the bill before the Senate.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to comment on the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I note that previous speakers have talked about its positive aspects. There are several very positive steps forward, particularly for those who are sight impaired. Technology is a wonderful thing, particularly when it is put to use to enhance people’s life experience and ability to participate in our democratic processes and to provide opportunities to improve people’s social inclusion. But today I would like to comment on some things we have had conversations with many members of the Canberra community about. These are the changes proposed in this bill with respect to closing the roll, the greater identity checks and the increased difficulty for people to get on the roll.

I think the real issue that needs to be understood here is that the Howard government has got real form on using laws such as the electoral laws for its own partisan benefit, and many of my colleagues have already made the comment that many of these laws are doing exactly that. We did some research here in the ACT, in my electorate, and found that under these new rules over 10,000 potential electors could have lost their right to vote in the electorates of Canberra and Fraser at the last election. That gives a sense of the magnitude of the change that is taking place. That is how many people needed to change their arrangements, or indeed get on the roll, post the issuing of the writs. I note that there is a three-day leeway, but it is still hard to say whether or not that will be enough time for people to update their addresses. I know that there would be a huge amount of work for the Electoral Commission to undertake and I know also that new enrollees would not be able to do that.

The thing about existing voters updating and changing their details and the increased identification checks that will be required just shows that it is about making it more onerous, particularly for young people. I think that the effort in this regard is to put up a higher barrier for people who are perhaps motivated to vote and to get on the electoral roll but not if the fence is put too high. I think that it is an effort to undermine what is an established principle, one that all but a few coalition people agree with: the principle of compulsory voting. We need to value that system; we do not need to make it harder for people to participate in it.

The other point that I would like to make about this approach is that when it comes to political donations the Labor Party believes that it is incredibly important to have the utmost transparency in the way political donations are made. I have often had this debate on the airwaves locally with my ACT Senate colleague, Senator Gary Humphries. A Liberal senator, Senator Humphries often says that he does not think there should be political donations at all to parties, and we have had a debate about that. My response is that we need to have political donations because that is part of how our system works, but we need to have them in the most open and transparent way possible. So I think that it is quite ironic that we are debating legislation that seeks to make it less transparent, yet my Liberal counterpart is arguing for no political donations at all. I think he has quite a bit to reconcile in his taking that position and his party putting forward this kind of legislation.

In moving about the Canberra community, we have paid particular attention to university campuses and to young people, because they are likely to be the most disenfranchised by the closing off of the roll and the issuing of the writs. At the show just last weekend here in Canberra we saw a number of young people come past the Labor Party stall. We had our enrolment forms there and we advised them that they ought to get on the roll if they are turning 18 because they will not have a chance to once they are prompted by the calling of an election. People are quite shocked when I explain the implications of this and what this government is doing. They feel that it is a trick, that they are being robbed of something potentially without due warning and without due opportunity to get themselves on the roll in the way that generations have before them. I guess that it is a salient reminder to people that you really cannot trust the Howard government.

We are supporting this bill because there is a lot that is good in it. But typically there are a few spiky bits the government insists on putting forward that I think will undermine our democratic processes into the future. This bill will serve as an ongoing reminder particularly to young people, I think, that they are right to be sceptical about the motivation of the Howard government on all matters electoral. They are right to assume in many cases that there is a partisan motivation behind its activities in legislating in this area and that this government will do all it can to be just a little bit tricky, a little bit sly, a little bit manipulative when it comes to enhancing its chances to win the next election.

Labor are not going to stand for that. We will show the government up when it is necessary and when there is something going on that is not fair in Australian society. Whilst ever they have the numbers in this place—and in fact the majority in both houses of parliament—all we have are our words, and the government can do what they like in terms of legislation. So Labor will continue to remind people throughout this election year that they do need to get on the electoral roll before the election is called. They do need to check their enrolment details if they have had a change of address. We know that the system of the Electoral Commission in trying to notify people or check to see whether people are on the roll if they do not get their returns is flawed and that people are being struck off the roll. We know that there are fewer people on the roll than there were previously and that there has been a far greater drop in the number of people enrolled than previously. All of these things point to something a little bit wrong with the system, a system that is specially designed for Australians by the Howard government. Labor will keep on being diligent. We will be reminding people of the antics of the manipulative government and we look forward to the next election when, hopefully, people will not be disenfranchised, because they have got the message that they need to get on the electoral roll early.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is certainly a pleasure to follow Senator Lundy and that very thoughtful contribution to the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, which we are debating this evening. An interesting aspect of this bill is that provisions in the bill make it easier for people to participate in our democracy. That is quite in contrast to the shenanigans that this government got up to in the bill they put through last year. It has been highlighted by my colleagues that the provisions in this bill do make it much easier for people who are sight-impaired or members of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Federal Police to participate in our democratic processes. The government is to be commended for that.

As I said earlier, Mr Acting Deputy President Ferguson, it is in stark contrast to what the government—your government—put through late last year in amendments to the electoral laws that we have operated under for some years. You may recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that one of the significant changes that was effected by last year’s bill was that when the election is called you only have that evening to enrol. The other significant change to the previous laws was that you previously had seven days to change your enrolment; under the new laws you only have three. The two significant issues that have come out of those changes are, firstly, if you are a new enrollee you have only until the evening of the day of the election being called to get on the electoral roll; and, secondly, if you are trying to change your enrolment you have only three days whereas previously you had seven.

I do not know what goes through the minds of the members of the government in relation to their concern about these new enrollees. I can only talk from my own experience. I understand that 80,000 people enrol in that week’s grace that they have to enrol. One would think that the government have it in mind that there are all these Labor supporters out there sitting around on some bench or collecting their Centrelink payments or something like that who just somehow or another get motivated in that last week before they have to vote to go and put themselves on the roll so they can vote Labor.

I would say that the people who do not have the opportunity to go and get on the roll are independent contractors, tradesmen and people who work in the cities and commute. They are people who might once have been called Howard’s battlers. They are the people who, in my city of Sydney, live on the fringes of the city. They are people who live in seats that are located almost exclusively in an arc from Wyong right around Sydney to Sutherland. I would suggest that those people have not been voting for us since 1993; yet by your actions in the bill that was passed last year those people will become disenfranchised under this legislation. I would think that the people whom we think might vote for us—maybe the unemployed, people who are not working, people who are housebound and students—have plenty of opportunity to enrol. They can walk down the high street in Penrith any time and get on the electoral roll. It is those people who are working who will not have the opportunity. It may well be that you have outsmarted yourselves and disenfranchised a number of coalition voters. Good luck!

We know that the changes that occurred last year will disenfranchise up to 80,000 people. We know that at least up to one-quarter of a million people change their enrolment. Perhaps the minister, in reply, will clarify this: if people are at one address and they have not re-enrolled at another and they go and vote at the old address, is that improper? Is that illegal? Maybe that could be answered in the minister’s contribution at the end.

I am also very concerned about the need for people to present evidence that they are who they say they are. We have not had that before. In my last contribution in the last session of parliament I mentioned a seminar that I addressed with a director of the Exodus Foundation, Michael Crews. Michael Crews was speaking about the difficulties of the people whom their foundation assists in Ashfield. One thing he mentioned, which was quite astounding to me and I was not aware of it, is that some 100 of their clients—I think that is the term Michael uses for the people who seek their assistance—do not have birth certificates. They do not have birth certificates because they were never registered at birth. The Exodus Foundation is constantly going to Centrelink and other government bodies arguing on behalf of these men and women who have not been registered at birth. They have the difficulty that they are never going have a birth certificate because they do not have one! Where are they in this hodgepodge of changes that have occurred? I am not exactly sure. Hopefully, those men and women have got the assistance they need to be sorted out in that regard. But it is not just those men and women that seek the assistance of organisations like the Exodus Foundation. I am sure there are a number of our Indigenous people who may not have ever been registered at birth because it was not the custom of the tribe or the system in which they were born. So there are difficulties in the legislation.

But what seems to me to be the overriding obsession of the government in the introduction of the bill is the fact that they think the Labor Party are out there massively trying to rort the electoral system. To my knowledge, in the last two decades, there has been only one inquiry that has mentioned electoral rorting—that is, the Shepherdson inquiry in Queensland. I had the opportunity this afternoon to have a look at the outcome of that inquiry and the people and the issues involved. One would think the obsession of the government is, as I suggested, that there is a Labor rorting unit out there somewhere that operates by going from seat to seat with hundreds, no thousands, of men and women who they falsely enrol. You would think that that is what it is about—not only is it about enrolling for the potential to vote in elections, as the Shepherdson inquiry exposed, but it is about being involved in internal Labor Party ballots.

I went through and counted how many people seemed to be involved in this massive rorting operation that was conducted in Queensland. I do not think there were more than 150 people involved, and they were mainly involved in internal Labor Party ballots. I am suggesting that there is not this great army out there that is trying to rort the electoral system. It just cannot be done and, in fact, the result clearly is that if you are going to have an operation like that, you need a lot of people to shut their mouths. Clearly, the Shepherdson inquiry was as a result of people who did not shut their mouths. As a result of that, I think, one woman went to jail, three MPs resigned, and I cannot recall whether the government lost in that period or was in a lot of trouble for a while, but in the end the electoral processes were sustained. The inquiry pointed the finger at the people who needed to be put on the spot, and the transparency was maintained.

I do not think that the reasons behind the changes to enrolment which occurred last year are at all justifiable. In fact, all I think they are going to end up doing is making sure that 80,000 people do not get to vote, and that up to a quarter of a million people are going to vote in seats they do not live in anymore, so they will not be voting for the person who represents them. I think this is a reflection of the obsession by the government with what is quite an honest and honourable electoral system and the electoral officers who conduct our elections for us.

I am not sure where we will end up with these seemingly constant attacks on the system by the federal government. I wonder whether or not, in their cups, when they really think about the sort of system they would like, they would like to go back to the 19th century when we had a property franchise where only males could vote. I am sure that in their cups in the dining rooms, where they all sit around and think about the conspiracies that we are up to, in the end that is really what they would like: to go back to males only and a property franchise.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The Labor Party, as has been said in this place already, will support the bill because parts of it do allow a few more people to be able to vote and it does ensure, very importantly, that Australian Defence Force personnel serving overseas and sight-impaired people will find it easier to cast their votes. Giving Australian Defence Force personnel the ability to cast their vote electronically is a terrific idea and it is to be welcomed.

As has been noted elsewhere, the provisions in this package do have some deficiencies but, on balance, the whole package, as has been said previously, does take us forward at least a short distance compared to the draconian disenfranchising measures found in the last tranche of changes to this legislation that were considered in this place. The provisions around voting for the visually impaired are to be welcomed. I would note, though, that, sadly, these facilities will be limited to only 30 centres. The legislation does not follow the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that the facilities should be in each and every electorate, not just in 30. These measures are there to help people who are disadvantaged and who have particular problems. They are there to assist them to place their vote and, importantly, to get it right, unlike the previous amendments to the act.

Remote communities, including Indigenous communities, need to be assisted, and you do not get more remote than some of the communities I represent in the great state of Western Australia. I am talking about not only remote Indigenous communities but also remote mining communities where workers are often employed on a fly-in fly-out basis. Will their enrolment be up to date? Will they be disenfranchised by the earlier measures taken by the Howard government? The proof will emerge at election time, but already some noted experts on electoral matters have condemned this government for the measures already taken and what they will do to take the franchise away from what they predict will be a very large number of people.

I commend the government for the provisions in relation to Defence personnel and people who are visually impaired, but I wonder why this government is so paranoid about people voting in the first place. Closing the electoral roll for most new enrollees on the day the writs are issued for the election will prevent people from enrolling, and only giving existing voters three days to get their details up to date will knock people off the roll. I would suggest this government is worried that these people will vote Labor, and heaven forbid they vote Labor. Why might they vote Labor if this government gives them the opportunity to vote at all later this year? I can tell honourable senators opposite that there are plenty of reasons and the list gets longer every day. I will start with Iraq. When the Howard government committed troops to the invasion of Iraq, we were all promised that our military commitment would be for a matter of months, not years. I will repeat that for honourable senators opposite: a matter of months not years. How wrong was that?

Recent debate has shown only too clearly how confused the Howard government is in terms of the messages it is now conveying about our commitment to, sadly, that quagmire of five years. While the Prime Minister says that we shall stay until final victory, or words to that effect, the Minister for Defence is saying there can be no victory in Iraq. If it were not so deadly serious for the Iraqi people and coalition troops, it would be funny. Instead, it is an ever-growing tragedy. Rather than making this country safer in terms of the threat presented by international terrorism, the policies pursued by this government and this Prime Minister have done the opposite.

We also have the Vice President of the United States saying that withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq—which, I might add, is Labor’s policy—to better fight the war in terror in our region would not put at risk Australia’s relationship with our most powerful ally. Fancy him saying that—stealing Mr Rudd’s lines. Isn’t that amazing? He has obviously been reading the papers. Well done to Mr Cheney. It is a shame that the Prime Minister has not been reading the same papers. This further undermined the Prime Minister’s argument that redeploying our battle group in Iraq would somehow threaten that important relationship. The Vice President, figuratively speaking, blew the Prime Minister out of the water. It is no wonder this government does not want too many people on the electoral roll if their intention is to vote against our involvement in the war in Iraq.

Another reason this government has for worrying that there might be a lot of disgruntled voters on the rolls is housing affordability. In the capital city of the state I represent in this chamber, young people are finding it even harder to find the money to afford their own home. We have had four interest rate rises from the Pinocchio nose from Bennelong. You know the little Pinocchio from Bennelong—you have seen the ads. Every time there is an interest rate rise, zoonk, out goes the proboscis another inch. Yes, they are finding it very hard. We have had four interest rate rises since the last election, and yet the Reserve Bank of Australia warned only last week that it would not hesitate to adjust interest rates again, election year or not, and that the direction in which interest rates were likely to go at this stage was up—not down; up again. This is because, as my colleague the member for Lilley, Mr Swan, has said, the Howard government has failed to come to grips with inflation. In fact—honourable senators opposite, through you Mr Acting Deputy President, listen to what I am going to say—only last week we had the Treasurer refusing to deny that he had made statements to the effect that it would not be such a bad thing if the economy faltered so that voters become, listen to this, a bit more worried about future.

I would also like to remind honourable senators opposite that on 12 February Glenn Milne, once upon a time one of the government’s more sympathetic journalists, wrote in the Australian:

Peter Costello is telling anyone who will listen, behind the back of his hand, that it might not be such a bad thing if the economy hits a few bumps. In the Treasurer’s eyes such a scenario would put some voter apprehension back into the election mix ...

The Treasurer was twice asked directly if he had made any such statements and twice refused to deny making such statements. It is simply extraordinary that the Treasurer of Australia hopes that the Australian economy falters—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. It might be pertinent that you draw the honourable senator’s attention to the piece of legislation we are actually debating. The public’s voting intentions might be of interest to him, but we are in fact debating the Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I get the drift of your point of order. Second reading debates have normally been far-reaching. The senator is not out of order, but I would remind him of the subject matter before the chair.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is about relevance, but I do appreciate your comments. As I was saying before I was interrupted, it is simply extraordinary that the Treasurer of Australia hopes that the Australian economy falters so as to boost the electoral prospects of the coalition and his own leadership campaign against the Prime Minister and the PM-in-waiting, the member for Wentworth. It is only too obvious that the Treasurer is more interested in his own ambitions than in the health of the Australian economy and the wellbeing of Australian families. I would suggest that he has his eye on the Prime Minister’s job and not on the best interests of the Australian economy.

Another reason this government may not want too many of what they consider the wrong sort of people voting at the upcoming election is the burning issue of climate change. The Prime Minister and his government have been dragged kicking and screaming to the realisation that a large majority of the Australian public is deeply concerned with the issue of climate change, and this terrible drought is linked to the issue in their minds, even if the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to link the two.

We on this side, though, are deeply engaged with the issue. On the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition released Labor’s national clean coal initiative to reduce greenhouse and, importantly, to secure jobs in the coal industry. As we know, coal is an important part of our economy and Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter. The initiatives include setting up a national clean coal initiative to place Australia’s coal industry and exports on a sure international footing, and establishing a national clean coal fund, working in partnership with the private sector. Federal Labor will also increase funding for the CSIRO by no less than $25 million over four years. This will strengthen its leadership role in the research and development of clean coal technologies. This is about ensuring that we have a strong and long-term coal industry and working in partnership with state governments and the coal sector.

Labor’s national clean coal initiative is an important element in Labor’s comprehensive approach to dealing with the threats and opportunities of climate change. This approach includes immediately ratifying the Kyoto protocol; cutting Australia’s greenhouse pollution by no less than 60 per cent by 2050; setting up a national emission trading scheme; substantially increasing the mandatory renewable energy target; and convening a national climate change summit in Canberra in late March or early April 2007, which if I remember rightly, I am sure the Prime Minister was invited to attend by Mr Rudd.

Federal Labor will be making further announcements on energy renewables and other energy sources in the coming months. We will also be seeking further input from the business and science communities on this very important initiative. This is what Labor will do, and it is no wonder voters are attracted to such policies and initiatives. It is also no wonder that this government is intent on taking the franchise away from people who might be attracted to Labor policies like these, because where is the Howard government on issues like climate change? Behind the play, that is where they are.

Only today we have observations like this one again from Mr Glenn Milne, writing in the Australian newspaper, at page 8. He says that the Business Council of Australia, under Michael Chaney’s leadership:

... was way out in front of the Government on the climate change issue. Howard is still catching up.

No wonder the government is worried, and no wonder they are worried about people who they consider to be the wrong people having a vote come election time. That is because this is a government that, after 11 long years, is becoming increasingly tired, out of puff and out of touch. This is a government whose senior members, no less, are increasingly concerned about their own futures, rather than the future they can help to provide for the people of Australia.

In summing up, this is a government that, despite the Prime Minister’s power walks, is really running out of steam. It is little wonder that, despite the minor positive measures contained in this bill, this government gives every appearance of doing everything it can to make it as hard as possible for people who it considers will vote against it to vote at all.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to thank honourable senators for their contributions to the bill—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You still can.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I will, but I will note that it was extremely disappointing that they did not largely address the legislation that we are debating here today.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn’t talk about AWAs. I didn’t get around to that.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure that you would have had a crack at anything, Senator Sterle. In fact, Senator Sterle is Labor’s junior attack puppy here in the Senate. He had a very broad-ranging discussion which, as I said, very rarely even reflected on the legislation that we are talking about, which makes some very positive contributions to the Electoral Act. Interestingly, considering the debate that we have heard here this evening, the report was unanimously supported by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration following its recent inquiry. That actually makes the contributions that have been made to this debate somewhat more amusing. I do not think it is really worth chasing all of those comments down, but it really was an object in retrospectivity that Labor was playing through the debate.

This bill is the second part of government’s response to recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report on the 2004 federal election. I would like to thank the chairman and members of that committee for the comprehensive inquiry and the report. The measures in this bill build upon the electoral reform measures passed by the parliament in June 2006 and will improve the participation in our democratic process. The major provisions in the bill relate to electronic voting trials, improvements to voting arrangements and proof of identity requirements for Australians enrolling from overseas.

The electronic voting trials are significant, as they will be the first conducted for a federal election. The trial for blind or vision-impaired people has been extremely well received. The trial will allow these people to cast an independent secret ballot for the first time at a federal election. This will be done through the use of electronically assisted voting machines. The trial will be conducted in up to 30 prepoll voting centres across Australia. The Electoral Commission is working very closely with organisations such as Vision Australia to ensure that the locations are known to people with this disability so that the participation in the trial can be maximised. If the trial proves to be successful, the government will consider expanding the number of locations at the 2010 election.

The second trial will allow Australian Defence Force personnel serving outside Australia to cast a vote electronically. This trial will overcome the many difficulties associated with voting options for Defence Force personnel overseas and will allow them to vote in safety. It is estimated that approximately 1,500 Defence Force personnel who were overseas for the 2004 election missed out on having their say. This was about one-third of the Defence Force deployed overseas at that time. This trial will give Defence Force personnel serving overseas that important opportunity to have their say. The AEC is working in close cooperation with the Department of Defence on the technical issues associated with the trial. The government welcomes the defence department’s cooperation on this matter. As my colleague the Special Minister of State indicated during debate in the other place, the government will consider extending electronic voting to other personnel serving outside Australia if this trial is successful.

The government welcomes the support for these trials, and I would like to reassure the Senate that neither of these trials are precursors to electronic voting generally. Defence Force personnel who are overseas will also benefit from provisions in the bill for automatic registration as postal voters. This provision will also apply to Australian Federal Police personnel serving overseas and to eligible overseas voters. It will mean that they will be sent postal-voting material automatically once the election has been announced. Most importantly, they will not have to apply for their postal vote and therefore lose more time in waiting to receive the ballot paper. This will reduce any time delays associated with getting the postal vote out to them and the return of that vote.

Other improvements to postal-voting arrangements will enhance the prospects for people to receive postal-voting material in time to be able to return their postal vote for inclusion in the count. The AEC needs time to get the ballot paper back to people so that they can post it and have it postmarked in time to be an eligible vote. The measures will allow the AEC to assess the most practicable and reasonable means of delivering postal material to electors, taking into account postal delivery schedules and considering means other than postal delivery, including via courier.

The government is also concerned that many people who seek to vote as a postal voter miss out on voting because, while they may have lodged an application on time, the processing of that application, including the return posting of ballot papers, may not occur in time for the vote to be included in the count. Often a voter thinks that their vote has arrived in time when it has not.

This bill provides that the AEC will not be required to send postal voting material where applications are received after 6 pm on the Thursday before polling day. However, in this circumstance the AEC will be required to contact those people whose applications are received after this deadline and advise them of alternate voting options. These options will include casting a prepoll vote on the Friday or making arrangements to attend a polling booth on polling day. The AEC will do all that it can to contact these electors. This provision will ensure that these people have the best possible chance of having their vote counted.

The bill also expands on the list of AEC personnel who will be able to accept postal votes, thus providing greater flexibility and broader options for the return of postal votes in time for inclusion in the count. In addition to these legislative measures, the AEC will conduct an extensive advertising campaign to alert people to postal voting issues. As honourable senators will recall, legislation passed in June 2006 introduced proof of identity requirements for enrolment to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process. Regulations giving effect to these requirements are currently before parliament and will commence in April this year. The government has delayed commencement of the new requirements until after the New South Wales election. This follows a request by the New South Wales Premier to avoid confusion about enrolment requirements for state and federal jurisdictions.

This bill also introduces alternate proof of identity documentation that may be provided by Australians enrolling from overseas. These people will be able to provide their Australian passport number as an alternative to their drivers licence number. This is in recognition of the difficulty that they may have in meeting the new proof of identity requirements given their location outside Australia and lack of access to the documentation or the classes of electors required under the new scheme.

Other measures in the bill will allow the AEC to respond quickly to changing or unanticipated circumstances to establish prepoll voting centres without the need for prior gazettal, which could cause a delay in voting. The offence provisions for defamation of candidates will also be repealed. This will allow defamation cases to be dealt with in accordance with the existing defamation laws in the relevant state or territory jurisdiction. In closing, I reiterate to the Senate that the measures in this bill are important and will provide a greater scope for people to participate in the democratic process, and this is definitely a good thing. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.