Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2012 I will be drawing upon the coalition members' and senators' comments in the recent report into this bill of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Let me begin by outlining where the coalition agrees with the government. First is the issue of deadlines for postal vote applications. This bill brings forward the deadline for applications by one day, from the Thursday immediately prior to polling day to the Wednesday immediately prior to polling day. The coalition agrees with this proposal. We think it is a reasonable and sensible move as it simply reflects the reality of postal timelines. It is highly unlikely that someone who submits an application for a postal vote on the Thursday prior to polling day will have the opportunity to cast that ballot, so it is reasonable to reduce this potential conflict between electoral timelines and the reality of the post—partly so as not to mislead people into thinking such compliance is possible.

Secondly, the coalition supports the proposal to provide for further fixed periods to be provided for the augmented Electoral Commission to complete its inquiries into proposed redistributions of electoral boundaries. By way of an aside, I note that only a small and select number of people would have been pleased with the timelines and clashes with polling and elections that the Victorian redistribution of 2010 involved. This addresses a number of those concerns, but only in relation to timing.

Now I must turn to the areas where the coalition disagrees with the government. These are numerous, so I will take them individually. First is the issue of allowing Australian Taxation Office data to be provided to the Australian Electoral Commission for the purposes of automatic enrolment. I have probably spoken and written about this issue of automatic enrolment more than anyone else in this building, which probably only confirms the views some have of what tickles my interest. But I believe this remains an important issue. I have highlighted the flaws in national databases previously and I will do so again today. Indeed, they have been highlighted in every coalition comment with respect to this issue and in every report issued by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

A 1999 report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration entitled Numbers on the run: review of the ANAO audit report No.37 1998-99on the management of tax file numbers found that there were 3.2 million more tax file numbers than people in Australia at the relevant census. There were 185,000 potential duplicate tax records for individuals, and 62 per cent of deceased clients were not recorded as deceased in the sample match. Similarly, another ANAO audit report, No. 24 2004-05, titled Integrity of Medicare enrolment data, stated that ANAO found that up to half a million active Medicare enrolment records were probably for people who were deceased. These are statistics that should worry everyone, but flaws in databases for tax and Medicare are one issue; flaws in our electoral roll pose another challenge to electoral legitimacy altogether.

The coalition has long opposed the measures that provide for the Electoral Commission to put people on the electoral roll without their involvement, knowledge or, indeed, their consent. This obsession with numbers in terms of enrolment can come only at the cost of integrity as, inevitably, a mistake will be made. The loss of the paper trail in terms of the signature someone would put on a old-style enrolment form can only make prosecuting instances of electoral fraud more difficult. While I note that the Chief Legal Officer of the AEC, Mr Paul Pirani, has questioned the value of a signature, particularly on the grounds of their evolution and change over time, this is still a piece of evidence we seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to prevent the collection of. I will return to the issue of signatures later as they are particularly relevant to other aspects of the bill and amendments to be moved by the coalition.

The coalition is opposed to the extension of the automatic enrolment process by allowing ATO data to be used for the purposes of enrolment. This is data collected for another purpose by people not familiar with AEC protocols and codes of conduct. It also breaches the wall of privacy that should apply to ATO information. I note that only a few weeks ago in this chamber and the other place we had the ludicrous suggestion that privacy provisions around ATO data prevented the public and the Australian parliament being informed about the revenues collected by the mining tax, and not about individual payments by companies or individuals. Now the Labor Party seeks to hand over people's personal information to another agency.

I state again my genuine fear that this process will compromise the electoral roll. The nightmare scenario is that a close election in a single seat or for government itself is determined by a handful of votes and some of these are called into question by errors on an electoral roll. Let no-one say they were not warned when the inevitable mistake is made—and we are only human, so mistakes will be made—and inappropriate amendments are made to an electoral roll by removing people or adding them. The coalition will be calling the proponents of these automatic enrolment measures to account. We have warned parliament and we have warned those proponents time and time again.

The second issue the coalition disagrees with is the proposal to remove the requirement for a voter exercising a prepoll vote to sign a certificate before casting that ballot. Again, we seem to be faced with an inexplicable desire to remove a piece of evidence that may be useful later on. At the last election we changed prepoll votes to effectively ordinary votes to be counted on the night, reflecting the numbers of people that were casting prepoll votes and to allow the Saturday night voting count to be as accurate as possible, so people could get a result as quickly as possible. I note now that the government is using the removal of prepoll votes as declaration votes as an argument to justify the removal of people signing a prepoll certificate. This is a circular argument.

The coalition at no point conceded to the removal of the prepoll certificate. The coalition agreed that the votes should be counted on Saturday night where possible, because it gave people a degree of accuracy about what the result of the election might be as soon as possible. To mount a case that, because we now count them on the night, they are ordinary votes and therefore we should remove the hurdle and the certificate someone signs to access a prepoll vote is nothing but a circular argument and a piece of trickery by this government. The numbers of people exercising people prepoll votes are increasing and the Electoral Commission is facilitating this. I have personally always been concerned by the number of prepoll votes. While there is always a case for those who cannot make polling day, it was not that long ago that prepoll voting was open for a week. I note under this bill we are proposing prepoll voting be open for 19 days.

The AEC has said on a number of occasions that we have a polling period now and not a polling day. I challenge this. I think we should still be striving for a polling day: a polling day that gives people the benefit of seeing a five-week election campaign. For those who criticise the idea of three years leading to permanent election campaigning, I suggest that having a polling period only exacerbates that. There is something wonderfully democratic in everyone voting on one day. For the advocates of compulsory voting and compulsory enrolment to undermine the importance of that single voting day undermines their argument.

I turn again to the issue of the signature. Mr Pirani has previously said at hearings of the joint standing committee and the Senate finance committee—I think, although I stand to be corrected on which committee—that a signature is of limited legal value and evidentiary value, because people's signatures change over time. I went back and looked at my own signature from some paperwork when I was at university, some 15 years ago, and it has changed a bit. I suggest though that in 15 years it has not changed enormously. You can look at your signature on old drivers licence as there are 10-year drivers licences these days. That argument is not relevant in the case of a prepoll voting certificate, because for a prepoll voting certificate we are looking at a matter of weeks. We are looking at someone signing a form to exercise a prepoll vote and then whether or not there is an issue around someone voting in someone's name twice or someone inadvertently voting twice. It is only a matter of weeks when I consider the signature on a prepoll certificate and potentially a duplicate vote. The point I make is that in this case there is some evidentiary value.

We are also aware that quite a number of those who will vote on more than one occasion may be elderly Australians—senior Australians. They might be at a hospital where there might be a pre-poll facility coming around, and I note that they will still be required to exercise a vote the declaration way. But the point I make is that sometimes their family might come and pick them up and they inadvertently cast two ballots. What this particular provision proposed by the government would do is that if someone cast a pre-poll vote or if someone turns up to vote and there had already been an allegation of someone casting a vote in their name—for example, if someone voted in my name before polling day, because I would vote on polling day, to a certain extent I could prove my innocence if a signature did not match—it will remove the facility of someone to actually free themselves from suspicion if there were an allegation of multiple voting. I do not know the mischief that this particular amendment is trying to address. Signing a pre-poll certificate is not a particularly burdensome approach for someone voting before polling day. In fact, one of the reasons why people vote before polling day at the moment is to avoid the delays of time. My issue is that I do not see—and the coalition does not see—the need to remove that.

The third issue is the number of days of pre-poll voting. The coalition has outlined in our dissenting comments in the most recent Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report into this bill that we do not believe that it should be open for 19 days. The coalition's view is that it should be available for 12. The coalition will be moving amendments to reflect those three differences in the committee stage of this bill, and I look forward to further explanation and debate around those then.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens do support the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2013. Much of the substance of this bill comes from the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2010 election. I do congratulate the chair of the committee, Daryl Melham, that he was able to gain consensus, often under difficult circumstances. While there is disagreement on aspects of this bill, there is also considerable agreement. On one of the areas, around the premature opening of ballot boxes, we were able to work out agreements, and I understand that the government has made some amendments there following on from the raising of those concerns.

There are really four aspects of this legislation we have before us. First, it sets out the time line where an additional round of objections is needed during a redistribution. Second, there is the issue about the electoral roll itself, as the bill will allow the Australian Taxation Office to share relevant information with the Australian Electoral Commission. Third, there is the issue about the ballot boxes—changes in procedures for dealing with ballot boxes if they are opened prematurely. Fourth, there is the issue of postal and pre-poll votes with regard to changing the rules that cover those two aspects of the electoral process.

I will just take up two of the issues that have come up. I mentioned the ballot boxes, and I understand that this has been largely covered and that there will not be any amendments to it because the government has amended its own bill, and it is good that we have been able to sort that one out. It is interesting to note the ongoing very strong objections that are coming from the coalition with regard to the Australian Taxation Office sharing relevant information with the Australian Electoral Commission to assist with direct enrolment. This is something that the Greens do support. We see that it is very important in terms of the integrity of the electoral roll because any measures that can be taken to educate and encourage people about voting, and to improve the electoral roll in terms of its reach of covering all those people who are eligible to vote is so very important.

What we have before us is a tightening up on some of the legislation that we have passed previously that has addressed this issue of sharing of information between government departments. The passage of the 2012 legislation that allowed this form of direct enrolment was certainly welcomed by the Greens. It is where the AEC uses government data to enrol new voters and to update existing enrolments without specific action by the voter. That is something that I think will in time see a great advance, and I am quite confident it will become widely accepted as people understand the importance of this and how we all have our role to play in casting our vote come election time.

Within this program, the Australian Taxation Office can share addresses of taxpayers with the AEC to allow them to enrol those taxpayers or update their enrolment. I have been interested in and followed closely what the coalition have been saying about this. Despite their claims that it will increase voter fraud, they still have not brought forward any evidence of that. It certainly appears that their opposition is largely due to the fact that direct enrolment will result in the enrolment of many voters who normally are not enrolled. I think that is worth focusing on, because that is what is driving this very heated attitude coming from the opposition about this all important issue of direct enrolment.

When you start getting voters, usually disadvantaged people who may not have had the same opportunities to gain an education and who, for various reasons, have not got onto the rolls and are now being enrolled, to my mind that is a very significant aspect of strengthening our democratic process. I remain concerned with some of the arguments I have seen conducted on JSCEM itself as well as in the other House and in the Senate when this issue comes up. These people who now have the opportunity to get on the rolls have every right to vote and we have, I believe, a responsibility to ensure that our electoral roll covers all those people who are eligible to vote. I believe that this is important legislation and on behalf of the Greens I am very pleased to be able to support it.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Administration) Bill 2012. The bill implements the government's response to seven recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report into the 2010 federal election, as well as making a number of technical and minor amendments.

The Rudd and Gillard governments have implemented various election related reforms and the government continues to look to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for advice. We are committed to ensuring that as many people as possible can take part in the election process and that our elections are as straightforward and convenient as possible. As part of this ongoing commitment, the bill introduces a number of key reforms designed to improve the process that governs how Australians vote in elections and referendums. Changes include new procedures to be adhered to when a ballot box is opened prematurely as well as new fixed periods of time for inquiries to be completed into objections against proposed electoral boundary redistributions.

One of the most significant aspects of this bill is that it allows the sharing of information between the Australian Tax Office and the Australian Electoral Commission. The joint standing committee report made three recommendations related to maintaining the electoral roll. The first two of these measures have already been implemented by the government. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Protecting Elector Participation) Act and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Maintaining Address) Act both enable the commissioner to directly update address details using reliable outside information.

This bill includes the last of those three measures. It allows the Commissioner of Taxation and other taxation officers to provide some forms of taxpayer information to the Electoral Commission so that it can better maintain the accuracy of Australia's roll of electors. It achieves this by altering the relevant legislation governing the protection of personal data collected by the ATO, which would otherwise prevent the office from disclosing such information to the Electoral Commission.

Enhancing the veracity of the electoral roll is an ongoing battle. Even though there are an estimated 15.7 million Australians eligible to vote, only 14.2 million are on the electoral roll. Prior to the recent Western Australian election, it was discovered that one in two eligible 18- to 25-year-olds were not on the electoral roll. What is even more alarming is that according to the state's Electoral Commissioner, Mr Warwick Gately, if an elector does not vote at their first three occasions they are unlikely to vote thereafter in their lifetime. That is a real concern.

The Electoral Commission has worked extremely hard to lift enrolment rates here in Australia. As part of its continuous roll updates program, the commission has engaged in large-scale mail-outs to specific addresses where it believes unenrolled persons live. This mail-out is supplemented by fieldwork activity aimed primarily at those who have not responded to initial efforts.

In addition to this, the AEC's Indigenous Electoral Participation Program features commission staff travelling widely throughout the Northern Territory encouraging Indigenous people to participate in elections. There have also been rolling enroller programs run jointly with the Victorian Electoral Commission which target young people, not to mention AEC attendance at music festivals and regular meetings with homeless agencies to provide information on enrolment and voting. And the list goes on. But, despite all of this perseverance and ingenuity, the Electoral Commission's enrolment activities have not been sufficiently effective in arresting the trend of declining enrolment participation.

Put simply, this is not good enough, and every possible endeavour needs to be pursued to correct this imbalance. Australia quite rightfully applauds itself for the decision to make voting compulsory, even though that very process can prove inconvenient or unfamiliar to some. In countries around the world, such as the United States, where voting is not compulsory, political parties go to extraordinary efforts to encourage potential voters to register. Even then, voting participation still hovers below 60 per cent. Prior to adopting compulsory voting in 1924 Australia had turnout rates similar to the United States.

After the change to compulsory voting was made, participation leapt from 59 per cent in the election of 1922 to 91 per cent in the election of 1925. At the last election voter participation was over 93 per cent, and this is a result that we should be proud of. So why is more work required? Because every voice counts and right now some 1.5 million Australians are not even enrolled let alone exercising their democratic right to vote. We should, therefore, never let our focus on voter participation detract from the equally serious mission of improving enrolment rates.

The opposition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I am a member, have noted that it is an individual elector's responsibility to join the electoral roll and to update their details. Whilst it is true that Australians need to take responsibility for their own enrolment, all efforts should be undertaken to ensure that our elections are as inclusive and representative as possible. It is also worth remembering that those Australians who are not enrolled often feel alienated from the democratic process. Particular demographics of concern include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the homeless or those without a fixed address, young people and new arrivals to Australia—some of whom may have limited English skills.

The problem is that traditionally the process has tended to automate the process of removing people from the roll when they change address, but then individuals have to manually lodge an application to get back onto the electoral roll. The Democratic Audit of Australia told the Joint Standing Committee:

The problem ... lies in the current legislative restrictions placed on the capacity of the Electoral Commission to utilise data from trusted agencies to enrol or reinstate eligible electors.

This is why the government has moved to allow the tax office to provide otherwise protected information, such as the names and addresses of taxpayers, to the Electoral Commission to maintain the veracity of the electoral roll. As the minister noted during his second reading speech, 'although it is a small amendment on the face of this bill, it is another important step in assisting the Electoral Commission to deliver the most inclusive electoral roll possible.'

The bill reflects this government's strong commitment to a host of election-related reforms to boost enrolment and enhance the management of the election process. Labor, unlike the coalition, believe that every effort should be made so that enrolment and voting are as uncomplicated and as accessible as possible. We are not interested in disenfranchising those we believe will harm our electoral prospects. We are not interested in making it difficult for the young and potentially marginalised segments of the community to exercise their democratic right. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for those opposite me in the chamber.

When the Howard government were in power they took every cynical advantage they could when it came to electoral reforms. We should never forget that once they had control of the Senate they passed the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act. This act completely disenfranchised every Australian serving a prison sentence—meaning that some 20,000 people were suddenly unable to vote. This radical move particularly discriminated against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, who, it is sad to say, are disproportionately represented in prison populations. Their entrance back into society was made that much more difficult by the coalition. This act also contained one of the most cynical amendments in living memory; it actively sought to disenfranchise those who would otherwise have been able to enrol themselves before an election. It was outrageous.

Prior to the Howard government's amendment, the electoral rolls were not closed for a period of seven days following the issuing of the writs. This week-long period provided a vital window for citizens to enrol for the first time or update their existing enrolment. However, as a result of the 2006 legislation, the electoral rolls closed for new enrolments on the night the writs were issued. And we should never forget that; it was just another attack on ordinary Australians. This change disproportionately affected young people and new arrivals to Australia, many of whom may not have enrolled previously nor had a strong understanding of the electoral process. Let's be clear about this; the coalition were targeting segments of the community they knew would never vote for them. Fortunately, a series of High Court judgements struck down these reforms.

This demonstrates how far the coalition is willing to go to pass legislation aimed at improving their own electoral prospects regardless of the reasonableness or constitutionality of the changes. It took the nation's highest court to impede their egotistical drive to disenfranchise those hostile to their electoral prospects. They should be ashamed of themselves.

It is also important to point out that this same 2006 act increased the disclosure threshold from $1,500 to $10,000. It is in this aspect of campaign finance reform that the coalition appears to be increasingly out of step with modern practices that are occurring in democracies around the world. Most countries, realising the importance of a transparent political system that operates in the public interest, have actually sought to increase the transparency of donations, in contrast to those opposite. In contrast, we have the coalition, who raised the threshold that dictates when, for example, a tobacco giant has to declare a donation to the coalition. In addition to this, the act increased the threshold for the tax deductibility of donations to political parties and Independents from $100 to $1,500, and extended deductibility from individuals to corporations. Efforts by Labor to reverse these harmful reforms to Australian disclosure thresholds have, predictably, been opposed by the coalition.

It truly is reprehensible how far they will go to corrupt the electoral process. We should never forget that. For them, when it comes to a choice between transparency and political expediency, expediency wins out every time. Not so the Labor Party, which strongly believes in continually improving our democracy and ensuring that the nation's elections operate with minimal inconvenience or misunderstanding. We want every voice in every corner of this diverse country to be heard. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The speech I was going to give and the speech I will now give will be two entirely different things on the back of those quite extraordinary allegations from Senate Polley; her unfounded use of words such as 'corrupt' is entirely inappropriate.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But accurate.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator knows full well that that is not correct.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson, resume your seat. Senator Polley, you were given the courtesy of being heard in silence. I require that you extend the same courtesy. Senator Ronaldson.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I think Senator Polley protesteth too much, because she knows that she has gone far too far in her comments. I will tell you what the difference is, Senator Polley, between those on this side of the chamber and those on your side—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have got open—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On our side of the chamber—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson, you will address your remarks through the chair.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address this, through you, to Senator Polley, Mr Acting Deputy President. The big difference between those on this side and those on the other side is that we believe that, if you are entitled to vote and if you are properly enrolled to vote and you go into that polling booth, you are entitled to know that the person beside you is equally entitled to cast a valid vote. The Australian Labor Party have put their own sectional interests above that fundamental right to know that the person beside them is entitled to cast a vote.

I invite Senator Polley to look, for example, at the figures for multiple voting. Those figures are going up, not down.

We are quite happy to see legitimate changes to the Electoral Act and I pass no negative judgement in relation to the Australian Electoral Commission for some of these changes. But the changes have been, from the Electoral Commission, designed to spread the net further without, in my view, sufficient intention for the maintenance of the integrity of the roll. If we do anything in this nation, if we do anything in this place, it must be to maintain the integrity of that roll. If we do not do that then it is a gross abrogation of our responsibilities to those who are entitled to vote legitimately in this country.

I find it extraordinary to hear Senator Polley's comments when I reflect back to a bill that I had a bit to do with in a former life, which was the Commonwealth electoral amendment bill. There were bills put in by the Labor Party that sought to entrench the scant veil of reasonableness that was placed on the Australian trade union movement, that sought to reinforce the right of the trade union movement in this country to not be accountable for what funds they were raising and what funds were going to the Australian Labor Party. In a moment of gross hypocrisy, the government refused to refer a motion that I put into this chamber. It was a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in relation to holistic and wide-scale campaign finance reform. The Labor Party opposed it. They opposed a holistic reference to JSCEM in relation to campaign finance. They have the gall to come in here and cry crocodile tears about a process and then, when they are challenged in this place to do the right thing, fall at the very first hurdle. Thankfully, that failed. Thankfully, this chamber saw through the Australian Labor Party in that matter.

The Labor Party has over the last four years done everything possible to ensure that the integrity of the electoral roll is not maintained. We need to be absolutely serious about protecting the fundamental rights of those people who vote to have their votes cast at the same as everyone else—that is, that the person beside them is entitled to vote. If we abrogate that responsibility then the democracy that we all uphold in this place can be cast aside. It will cast aside what must underpin what we do. I most certainly will not countenance any lectures from the Australian Labor Party in relation to electoral reform. The parties that are determined to maintain the integrity of the electoral roll sit on this side of the chamber; those who want to cast it aside sit on the other.

In 2010 the ALP put forward the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010. My colleague in the other place Bronwyn Bishop, the member for Mackellar, said in relation to this bill:

Two and a half years ago we were willing to take Labor at their word on a promise that a comprehensive reform bill based on the outcome of the green paper process would be dealt with by the parliament before an election was called, but it never came; it simply never came. Instead this bill—this zombie bill, twice killed by the parliament already—is disinterred by Labor and the Greens and seeks to walk among us like the living dead. We will not support the bill …

Senator Sterle interjecting—

I do not know why Senator Sterle thinks this matter is a yawn. Through you, Acting Deputy President Fawcett, to Senator Sterle, the integrity of the electoral roll is no yawning matter. Listening to what has been said on the other side in relation to this, if they were really serious about maintaining the integrity of the electoral roll then they would stop this bastardisation of the process by their own.

This bill does a number of things, including setting out the procedures to be followed when a ballot box is opened prematurely, removing the requirement for an applicant for a prepoll ordinary vote to complete and sign a certificate, providing that prepoll cannot commence earlier than four days after the date fixed for declaration and nominations for any type of election, bringing forward the deadline for applications for postal votes by one day, providing further fixed periods to be provided for the Electoral Commission to complete its inquiry into objections against the proposed redistribution of electoral boundaries, and amending the Taxation Administration Act to allow the Commissioner of Taxation and other taxation officers to provide some forms of taxpayer information to the AEC.

As my learned colleague Senator Ryan has already told the chamber, the coalition do not oppose recommendations 9, 15, 29 and 30 of the JSCEM report which would be implemented through the passage of this bill, but we do oppose those parts of the bill relating to recommendations 3, 10 and 11 of the same report. Firstly, recommendation 3 proposes to remove the restriction on the ATO, allowing them to provide information to the AEC for the purpose of automatic enrolment. The coalition, on the other hand, believe that the current offence against the ATO disclosing protected information should remain. In the coalition's dissenting report, it was proposed:

That the AEC should concentrate on continuing to check the accuracy of the roll by canvassing and advertising to make people aware of their obligations to properly initially enrol and advise of change of address when it occurs.

I pay credit to the AEC for the moves they have made in that regard. Most certainly, the AEC has undertaken that part of its role with great diligence and I salute them for doing so.

Secondly, recommendation 10 proposes to repeal the requirement for an applicant for a prepoll ordinary vote to complete and sign a certificate. The coalition are of the opinion that electors continue to be required to sign a declaration when casting a prepoll on the basis that the repeal of this requirement:

… will increase the likelihood of voter fraud and threaten the integrity of the Electoral roll.

Thirdly, recommendation 11 proposes that the Commonwealth Electoral Act be amended such that an application for a prepoll vote cannot be made before the Monday, 19 days before polling day. As the coalition's dissenting report said, we believe:

… that pre-poll voting should not open until the Monday 12 days before polling day, as opposed to the Monday 19 days before polling day … The Opposition members are concerned that allowing pre-poll voting for 19 days prior to Election Day takes the focus of polling day itself, which is where the overwhelming majority of votes should be cast.

The coalition opposed these recommendations in our dissenting report as we believe they will harm the integrity of the roll. Some changes have been made, but the fact remains that the Australian Labor Party, with the bill as it stands, have not fully considered the ramifications of all the recommendations put forward by JSCEM. Indeed, this is just a typical Australian Labor Party piecemeal approach to legislative reform.

As has been stated before—stated by Senator Ryan, stated by myself and stated by the member for Mackellar in the other place—we fundamentally believe that the electoral system must ensure a number of things. Firstly, that the maximum number of eligible enrolled voters are enrolled. I reflect back on the comments of Senator Polley. The implications of her comments were that we do not believe that it must be a pivotal part of the electoral act, and a pivotal part of the responsibilities of this parliament. We most certainly do, and our record shows that we indeed fully support that the maximum number of eligible voters are enrolled. Secondly, that the voting and vote-counting processes are straightforward and accurate. We fully support that, and allegations to the contrary are again untrue and unfounded. Thirdly, we believe that the electoral system must ensure that the roll is as accurate as possible, and that standards are in place to prevent fraud.

We acknowledge that the current situation needs improvement in terms of the inaccuracies on the electoral roll: the large number of voters not on the electoral roll and problems with fraudulent voting. The dissenting report, as I said earlier on, provided information showing that there were 20,633 cases of multiple voting in 2007, 14,402 cases in 2004 and 16,949 cases in 2001. Clearly, this demonstrates a substantial increase in cases of fraudulent voting. That is why in our dissenting report we made a number of recommendations, including establishing a dedicated fraud squad:

…within the AEC to investigate and prepare briefs for the DPP to prosecute cases of fraudulent voting'.

And I go on:

That the current system of cleansing the electoral roll is maintained to ensure that elections are decided by an accurate record of eligible voters.

  …   …   …

That current dates for the receipt of postal vote applications from overseas voters are maintained, that voters should not be disadvantaged by being given less time to receive ballot papers.

That electors wishing to cast a valid declaration vote must provide correct information about their address prior to the close of rolls, failure to do this will result in their vote not being included in the count.

… and calls on the Government to ensure that South Australian ticket voting or a similar system is not implemented at a federal level.

And finally:

That the AEC retains the need for Election Day officials to sign a written contract acknowledging their important role and responsibilities.

Surely, any system that in any way allows for the possible use of fraud to obtain a vote must be stamped out.

And I will finish on this note: if we believe in anything in this place, it must be that we simply will not countenance fraudulent voting. The person who goes into that booth and who is entitled to vote is entitled to the protection of this parliament, and that protection is that the person beside them, similarly, is entitled to vote. Any fraudulent behaviour which diminishes the effective integrity of the vote of the person who is entitled to vote should quite clearly be stamped out by this parliament. For Senator Polley to take the so-called moral high ground in relation to this was remarkable. As one of my colleagues indicated, the halo above Senator Polley's head was quite remarkable, but it was entirely tarnished.

I very much support the comments made by Senator Ryan in his second reading speech—

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

Your learned colleague.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My learned colleague—you are right—as I said earlier, and I am happy to say it five times. I support fully the comments made by Senator Ryan and I thank the chamber for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I am broadly supportive of the reforms included in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2012, I have a number of specific concerns about the provisions that would allow the ATO, the Australian Taxation Office, to provide voter information to the AEC for the purpose of the maintenance of electoral rolls. I understand the need for accurate and up-to-date information to be included on the rolls, but I cannot support a system that seeks to bypass a voter's authority altogether.

I have some concerns about automatic enrolment. I believe that having a paper trail and a signature is by no means perfect, but you would have a process where you would have a paper trail and that is important and it ought to be maintained. I understand the public policy considerations of the government and the views of the Australian Electoral Commission in the sense that there is a concern that you ought to get as many people to enrol as possible. That is a valid concern, but the primary public policy concern ought to be to ensure the absolute integrity of the process, and to me having a paper trail is important.

I support compulsory voting, but I note that if a person decides not to attend the polling booth they can be hit with a penalty, albeit not a large one. I also note that there are penalties if a person does not provide information to the AEC. Again, these are not severe penalties by any means, but there are penalties. My concern is that allowing the ATO to cut out the middle man removes a person's right to object, in a sense. I am also concerned about how the information from electoral rolls is used. The provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act are fairly broad. The rolls, which include at the very least names and addresses of individual voters, can be handed out to pretty much any organisation that pays the fees. Of course, political parties, candidates and sitting members are exempt from these figures.

In late July and early August 2011, this issue of political exemption from privacy rules, coupled with access to the AEC rolls, flared up. Under the act, the AEC is required to provide monthly updates on the rolls to political parties. This information includes voters' names, dates of birth, gender, addresses and possibly their occupations. None of this information is provided with the voters' consent. Writing in the Australian on 26 July 2011, Peter van Onselen wrote:

Compiling, storing and using this information would be illegal if politicians had not exempted themselves from privacy laws in 2000, against the advice of the then federal privacy commissioner, Malcolm Crompton.

The following day in a further article on the subject van Onselen expands:

When the law was introduced in 2000, then federal privacy commissioner Malcolm Crompton opposed the exemption applying to political parties.

He said he did "not think that the proposed exemption for political organisations is appropriate … if we are to have a community that fully respects the principles of privacy and the political institutions that support them, then these institutions themselves must adopt the principles and practices they seek to require of others".

Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, it is interesting to note that a well-known political commentator from our home state of South Australia, Dr Dean Jaensch, a stalwart who has been lecturing and speaking out on political issues for many year, in an opinion piece in the Adelaide Advertiser on 4 August 2011 echoed these concerns. He said:

The Electoral Act provides that the Electoral Commission must provide every registered political party with a copy of the roll which includes sex, postal address, date of birth, salutation, most recent enrolment date, state or territory electoral district, local government area and whether recently enrolled.

Invasion of privacy? Absolutely. Are citizens asked for permission to have their information released to parties? Absolutely not. So, how can the parties get away with it?

Very simple answer - when the Privacy Bill was debated in the Parliament, Labor and Liberal voted to have it not apply to their access to the rolls

And he was quite scathing of the major parties in relation to that. He went on to say that, if you want to complain about it, 'complain to your member of parliament, but remember that your letter or call will be entered on your file in their database.'

So I cannot support these provisions in the bill, because I believe they remove yet another layer of voter consent, and I agree with the concerns raised by Senator Ryan in relation to this. Having a process, a paper trail, is important. I will be moving an amendment in this bill to remove these provisions. I think the opposition is moving a similar amendment, which I will be supporting. I look forward to having this discussed further during the committee stage.

I would also like to indicate that I intend to support the opposition's amendments in relation to prepoll voting. I believe that prepoll voting should only occur in circumstances where there is no alternative, not because people do not want to line up on Saturday morning when the election is on. The fact that you are extending that to 19 days, or almost three weeks, concerns me. My view is that extending the prepoll vote mitigates against the importance of election day. So many things can come up in those 19 days before polling day—in terms of issues, in terms of the accountability of the candidates—I think there is something sacrosanct about election day itself. There should be a compelling reason not to vote on election day. I understand that there are a whole range of reasons—for example, if you are an emergency services worker, if you are going to be out of the country—but let's keep the same requirements that we have now, where there ought to be a signature involved, making it clear that prepoll voting is effectively for those who genuinely cannot be there on election day. I think there is something quite important in our democracy about ensuring that people vote unless there is good reason not to and they are unable to on the actual election day.

I can indicate also that I will move again a number of amendments in relation to transparency of political donations, and I think it is important that those amendments are put up again, in terms of having very rapid access to election donations. At the moment I note that the government is moving some amendments in respect of this which will shorten the period from about 19 months in a worst-case scenario to about six months or so. I think that is obviously an improvement but there is no reason why we could not do a lot better, particularly in the course of an election campaign, where donations beyond the threshold can be put up pretty much instantaneously. I think that is something we ought to be aiming for.

Can I say that I do not have an issue with the current thresholds. I think that the administrative burden of the lower thresholds being proposed by the government are quite problematic. I do not think it is reasonable, when you assume what a campaign would cost, that a donation of $11,900 is going to swing an election; but I do think that having a much more timely disclosure is a preferred course in terms of transparency and the integrity of the process.

So, with those words, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill and I would like to hear from the government about whether they have experienced any difficulties, or whether the AEC has experienced any difficulties with respect to automatic enrolment in Tasmania—I understand it is being rolled out there first—and what the potential problems might be.

Finally, I would like to express my confidence in the Australian Electoral Commission. I think we can be very proud of the way the Australian Electoral Commission conducts itself and the way that it is held in very high regard throughout the world. Having looked at election systems in one particular other country in our region, I think it is fair to say that we can be—

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was more customs procedures, wasn't it?

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ryan unfairly made reference to customs procedures, but can I tell Senator Ryan that I have never managed to get through passport control so quickly as on the day when I was deported from Malaysia. It happened very, very quickly. There is nothing like a deportation order to get you out of a country in double-quick time! Unfortunately, Senator Williams was not there with me. The other issue is that, when we look at the Election Commission of Malaysia and their independence, or lack of independence, and compare them to the robustness of our system, they are worlds apart. That is why I think I need to acknowledge the good work and the integrity of the Australian Electoral Commission, something that I think is looked up to around the world in terms of the way they conduct themselves. I am looking forward to the committee stages of this bill.

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

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2013 will substantially improve the interactions that Australians have with elections and referendums. The bill implements the government response to several of the recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, JSCEM, in its report on the 2010 federal election—specifically recommendations 3, 10, 11, 15, 23, 29 and 30. In addition to making a number of technical amendments, the bill also implements the government's response to the recommendations made by JSCEM following its inquiry into the bill.

The bill continues the government's commitment to ensuring that the Commonwealth electoral roll best represents those Australians who are eligible to vote. In the 2010 JSCEM report, the committee made three recommendations relating to maintaining the electoral roll. This bill implements the last of those recommendations by allowing the Australian Taxation Office, the ATO, to provide enrolment-relevant personal information to the Australian Electoral Commission. This is achieved by a small amendment to the Taxation Administration Act. Although it is a small amendment on the face of the bill, it is another important step in assisting the AEC to deliver the most inclusive electoral roll yet. The JSCEM report makes it clear that there were an estimated 15.7 million Australians eligible to be enrolled but only some 14.2 million on the roll. Consequently, the majority of the committee agreed with the recommendation that the AEC should have access to information from credible government sources such as the ATO to update and maintain the electoral roll.

There are also small administrative amendments made in this bill. These amendments deal with when prepolling voting can commence and when postal vote applications can be received and with removing the requirement that a person who is seeking to use prepoll voting for an ordinary vote should complete a certificate before they do so. One of the methods of voting is to vote pre-poll. There are currently two times set out in the Electoral Act when applications for a prepoll vote can be made. These amendments clarify and establish one time at which prepoll voting will be available: the fourth day after nominations are declared. For a minimum election timetable, nominations are declared on a Friday, making the fourth day afterwards the succeeding Tuesday. Depending on the type of election—whether it is for the House of Representatives, for the Senate or for both—the act provides different days for the commencement of prepoll voting, and very minimal times are provided for the AEC to print and distribute ballot materials to early voting centres across Australia in time for polling to commence. This is a sensible, small amendment which provides a consistent time frame for when prepoll voting can commence. There is also currently a requirement that a voter complete a written declaration in order to vote by pre-poll as an ordinary voter. This requirement is not consistent with other forms of ordinary voting, which require only a verbal declaration. It does not serve a useful purpose and will be omitted by this bill.

One of the matters considered by the JSCEM concerned incidents that occurred in connection with the 2010 election—in particular, where some ballot boxes were opened before they were lawfully authorised to be opened. Since that incident, extra training and support materials have be applied and it is less likely to happen again. However, although this may be an excess of caution, the bill contains provisions which expressly clarify the action to be taken with respect to ballots that are contained in prematurely opened boxes. The Australian Electoral Officer for the state or territory will be responsible for examining the ballots, or envelopes containing ballots, drawn from ballot boxes which have been opened prematurely. Some ballots may be saved and included in the count, and some may be excluded. Ballot papers and envelopes containing ballot papers will not be excluded from scrutiny unless the ballot paper or envelope has been fraudulently altered or otherwise interfered with so as to not reflect the voters intention. The AEO will notify the Electoral Commissioner and the candidates for the election following his or her assessment of the ballot papers and envelopes.

Postal voting is increasingly popular. At the 2010 election the Electoral Commission processed over one million postal vote applications, which was a 17.8 per cent increase in the number processed at the previous 2007 election. Under the existing provisions, postal vote applications can be received up to 6 pm on the Thursday that is two days before polling day. Voters are required to cast their vote before the close of polling on Saturday. The limited time between the closing time for applications and election day make it highly unlikely that applicants will receive their postal ballot papers in time to cast their votes before the polls close. This amendment brings the cut-off forward by one day to 6 pm on the Wednesday three days before polling day. This change is made to improve the chance that the Australian Electoral Commission can deliver postal voting papers to an elector before the close of poll.

Finally, there is a small amendment being made to the rules relating to how-to-vote cards. The rules that set out a specific requirement relating to the minimum font size for the authorisation details are being omitted from the Electoral Act. This implements recommendation 23 of the 2010 JSCEM report. Of course, there are equivalent amendments being made to the Referendum Machinery Provisions Act 1984. The bill also provides for further fixed periods to be provided for the augmented Electoral Commission to allow it to complete its inquiries into objections against proposed redistribution of electoral boundaries. All the measures in the bill are designed to assist in ensuring that Australia can continue to have a robust and up-to-date electoral system and administration. The recommendations made by JSCEM in the majority report are both sensible and politically neutral. The government is committed to ensuring their implementation. I thank all senators who have contributed to this important debate and commend the bill to the Senate.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time. A division is required but under a temporary order of the Senate, divisions cannot be held until 12:30. Therefore, the division will be deferred until that time.