Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 7044:

(1)   Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 23), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

(2)   Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 8), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

(3)   Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 11), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

(4)   Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 19), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

(5)   Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 22), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

I do not propose to talk at length about the opposition's amendments, which were canvassed at length in my earlier contribution. Suffice to say that the coalition is unequivocal in its view that those who have broken the law, those who have been sentenced to more than one year in prison, should forfeit their right to participate in the community by way of casting a ballot at an election. We were very comfortable with the amendments which we introduced when we were in office. Given the government is seeking to change that situation, seeking to reflect in legislation the decision of the High Court, we think that it is appropriate to link the eligibility to vote to the constitutional requirement that someone who has a custodial sentence of more than a year is not eligible to stand for parliament. We think that is an inappropriate linkage to make. I will not go any further on that matter. I have canvassed it at length in my contribution. I commend the opposition amendments to the chamber.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to those remarks from Senator Fifield. Obviously, in considering the amendments set out on sheet 7044, the government opposes those amendments. We oppose those amendments on the basis that we have received legal advice on the international law aspects of this proposal from the Attorney-General's Department. That advice states that limiting the right to vote in the way envisaged by these opposition amendments would 'not be objective, reasonable or proportionate' according to the standards of international law in this area. That advice concludes that such a ban would be unlikely to comply with Australia's human rights obligations. We think that the formula found in the bill is an appropriate balance between the right of persons to vote and persons in custodial sentences forfeiting that right.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will not be supporting the opposition amendments. We are not necessarily hostile to the coalition's position, but it is a matter of degree. If you have copped a parking fine, arguably you have broken the law and nobody would seek to remove your franchise there. What the parliament is attempting to do here is identify exactly where that threshold or boundary should lie of having that important citizenship entitlement withdrawn from you if you are subject to a certain term of imprisonment. In this instance we are inclined to support the government for the reasons Senator Feeney has just set out. Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Fifield's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided [12:02]

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.