Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the parliament today on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005. At the outset, I reject and repudiate in the strongest terms the previous sentiments and remarks of the member for Lingiari. The Australian people have elected the Howard government on four occasions now. They have elected us because we are in the business of reform, we are in the business of implementing measures that make a difference to their lives, we are not beholden to or hijacked by any interest group and we are not at the mercy of any individual Australian or any group of Australians that clamours for political support exclusively. We are elected to govern in the national interest and this bill is part of the ongoing reform which modernises the electoral system, bringing it into the 21st century and making it more user-friendly and more in the interests of this country.

The bill responds to a number of priority recommendations of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related thereto. It will address a range of issues, which can broadly be seen as covering three areas: disclosures and authorisations relating to political expenditure and political donations, Australian Electoral Commission requirements and voting integrity. These are three important areas which underpin the validity, the integrity and the legitimacy of the Australian electoral system.

The fundamental and simple purpose of this bill is to update, modernise and bring our electoral system into line with our changing and modernising world. Australia cannot stand still on the economic, industrial or social fronts and neither can we stand still when it comes to strengthening our institutions. This legislation modernises our electoral system and gives it great credibility and integrity.

Current electoral laws need to be updated if we want our electoral system to continue to have the respect of the Australian people. With technological changes there will continue to be great challenges to overcome and we must ensure that our electoral system is able to meet the challenges that technology brings.

One of the reasons the Australian Labor Party continue to languish in opposition is that they just cannot accept that times move on. We live in a world where technology changes our lifestyles, the way that business is conducted and the way government can best perform its duties and carry out its responsibilities. Until the Australian Labor Party can get some inkling of the notion that we are no longer living in the age of the dinosaurs, in an age that is irrelevant to current-day Australia, they will continue to languish in opposition.

Currently, electoral laws allow for political donations of up to $1,500 before disclosure of the donation is necessary. This amount harks back more than a decade to 1992. It is now 2006, of course, and I think that seriously reflects the need for reform. If you compare what $1,500 was worth in 1992 with what it is worth today, you can measure the great difference.

The bill will increase the disclosure threshold from $1,500 to $10,000 with legislated CPI increases. This is a far more realistic figure and is on par with many nations that share our democratic system of government—such as the UK, where the disclosure threshold is £5000, and New Zealand, where the disclosure threshold is $NZ10,000.

Our current political structure is such that we, as members of the federal parliament, depend on financial support to carry out our campaigns. We need to get the support of the community, of business and of those who subscribe to our respective political and party views and philosophies and, in particular, our policies. We have to be realistic and to acknowledge that we do need extra support to help us in our campaigns to promote our re-elections, as may be the case. Any donations to individual members of parliament or political parties go into legitimate accounts that support specific campaigning purposes; they do not go into any secret Swiss bank accounts and they certainly do not go directly into the pockets of members of parliament.

In a democratic nation we cannot utilise the public purse in an unlimited fashion. In a democratic structure, as part of the social contract between the elected representatives and the citizens of a country, there is capacity for this transaction to take place in a legitimate, legal fashion. Taxpayer funding goes into our electoral work; taxpayer dollars go into offering services for the community, representing the community and consulting in the interests of our constituents and our local communities. Political donations have fallen over the last few years but the costs associated with campaigning continue to increase.

It has often been said that democracy is certainly not perfect but in an imperfect world it is the best system that mankind has to offer. It gives people a direct stake in their nation and in the elected representatives of their country. There is no other country that I would wish to be a citizen of. If you look around the world, the countries that have flourished economically and have given their people every opportunity to be empowered and to maximise their lives have been those that have subscribed to a democratic and representative system of government and politics.

Businesses, entities and individuals support individual members of parliament, or those campaigning as candidates, because they support their objectives, their policies or their vision, as the case may be, irrespective of what side of politics one happens to be on. Aren’t we better off increasing the threshold for donations to encourage donors? The fewer political donors we have, the more politicians will possibly be relying on a small number of donors. Keeping this change in mind, the threshold for tax deductibility for political donations will also be increased from the current $100 to $1,500.

A related issue is the current requirement for publishers and broadcasters to disclose political advertising returns. This is a task that is already undertaken by the individuals and organisations that authorise these advertisements as required under the Electoral Act. The bill will remove the redundant requirement on publishers and broadcasters to disclose political advertising returns. What is the need to duplicate this role when this has already been undertaken? It is an extra expense and an extra administrative cost on publishers and broadcasters that serves no real purpose. We have to minimise—and, where possible, eliminate—the red tape and bureaucracy that are the cause of delays and difficulties for businesses.

One of the most obvious issues with the current Electoral Act is that, unlike print, radio or television advertising, political advertising on the internet does not need to be authorised. This omission has come about because of technological changes, but the status quo should not be allowed to persist. I want to mention one of the examples that I referred to earlier where technology has moved on and the system has not caught up with it. We have to bring the system in line with technology as far as is humanly possible.

This bill will introduce regulations that will treat political advertising on the internet like all other political advertising, requiring it to be properly authorised. It is only right that all political advertising be correctly and fully authorised so that readers, viewers and listeners are fully informed about the sources from which the information originates. The Australian public deserves to know the identities behind political advertising. We would not want a situation in which there is scope for fraudulent misrepresentation by aspiring candidates or political parties of whatever political persuasion. This also holds for the issue of third parties who engage in political campaigning. Under the new legislation, these third parties will be required to lodge annual disclosures for political expenditure, including advertising outside campaigning times.

As I mentioned, the integrity of the electoral system is at the heart of this bill. The second area that the bill is aimed at is therefore giving greater validity to our voting system. The bill will reduce the close of roll period currently in place. Unenrolled voters will have until 8 pm on the day the writ for the poll is issued to submit their enrolment. Enrolled voters will have three working days to update their enrolment. Australian citizens are required to enrol to vote when they become 18 or take up Australian citizenship. We are also required to keep details with the Australian Electoral Commission up to date and accurate. This is an ongoing responsibility, not just something that should creep up on Australians whenever an election might be called. By closing the rolls at this time, there is ample time for the Australian Electoral Commission to enter data and verify details before the election. During the 2004 election, the AEC was required to make almost 400,000 new enrolments or changes to enrolments from the time the poll was called to the close of rolls.

Also crucial to the integrity of our voting system is the introduction of proof of identity requirements when enrolling to vote or voting as a provisional voter on polling day. It stands to reason that Australians who wish to demonstrate their right to vote should prove that they are legitimately and legally entitled to vote. I cannot for the life of me understand why, as has often been said, it is much more difficult to take a video out from a video store than to go and vote in the name of someone else and defraud and devalue the integrity of our democratic process.

Currently, naturalised Australians are the only people required to provide extra proof of identity to the AEC. Naturalised Australians are required to write their grant numbers on the application for enrolment. I cannot see why naturalised Australians are singled out by our political system to be scrutinised in this manner when no other citizen has to provide this proof.

We in Queensland recall the notorious Shepherdson inquiry, with high-level members of the Queensland Labor Party found to be deeply enmeshed in electoral fraud—tampering with the electoral rolls, forging enrolments and making false enrolments. Senior people in the Labor Party were called to account for it in a most shameful way. They were called to account by legitimate authorities. The Labor Party continues to hang its head in shame over that episode.

These violations in our electoral system went all the way up to the Deputy Premier at the time, Mr Jim Elder. He gave evidence at the inquiry indicating that these practices were widespread in sections of the ALP. These violations were documented as stretching back to at least the mid-1980s. The hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party knows no bounds. Those members of the Queensland ALP—I mentioned Jim Elder; there was also the then member for Woodridge, Mike Kaiser—might have forfeited their seats in parliament at the time, but the bottom line of it all is that they were defrauding and ripping off every Queenslander’s right to vote. They were thumbing their nose at the great honour and privilege it is to go into a polling booth and vote for one’s party or candidate of choice.

Enrolment is the right and responsibility of all Australian citizens who are eligible. We cannot let this right, this privilege—indeed, this honour—be sullied or tarnished by fraudulent actions. There must be no leeway whatsoever in this. No Australian must feel that their vote is cheated or means less than any other person’s. The simple requirement to provide a driver’s licence number or something similar is, I think, not too much to ask to ensure the legitimacy of our electoral system. It would allow for cross-checking so that irregularities or problems could be brought to the surface. It is the least we can do to ensure that each Australian’s right to vote is not eroded or diminished in value by those who would defraud our system of government and our system of democracy.

The same principle stands for provisional voting. During the last election almost 30,000 provisional votes were accepted where the names of the voters were later not able to be found on the electoral rolls. Thirty thousand provisional votes is no small number of votes. A simple requirement to provide proof of identity safeguards our electoral system.

Prisoners serving a full-time detention sentence have been stripped of their right to vote. Those on remand, on periodic detention, on parole or serving non-custodial sentences will continue to have the right to vote. It is the view of the Howard government that people who commit serious offences against society, against the community, should forfeit their right to vote; that if their actions, their conduct and their crime against their fellow Australians or against their society warrant a prison term then it should follow that their entitlement to vote should not continue. I think most Australians would agree with the government on this point. I think many Australians would feel astounded to think that someone who has committed a crime against society or against an individual and has forfeited their freedom—which is a very precious thing, of course—would still have the same voting entitlement as other, law-abiding citizens.

I now want to talk about changes to the AEC. Another important amendment will see a requirement for AEC offices to be located within the division they represent unless specific approval is provided by the minister. This is particularly pertinent in my electorate of Ryan. We had a divisional office—and a number of other electorates in Brisbane were also in that situation—but that office was removed from the Ryan electorate. In early 2004 the AEC centralised many of its offices and relocated.

In the case of Ryan, this occurred just two weeks before the state election, so my office was flooded with constituents who were greatly inconvenienced. The prospect of having to travel all the way into Brisbane city after they had already travelled to Indooroopilly was immensely annoying and frustrating. With three elections in Brisbane that year, including the national election, this terrible timing caused enormous problems for Ryan residents. Now, rather than being able to attend to electoral matters locally within their own electorate, constituents of Ryan and those in a number of other electorates must go into Brisbane to resolve these issues.

Other changes include an increase in nomination deposits for candidates and allowing limited access to the electoral roll for commercial purposes. This will be restricted to organisations that are required to verify a person’s identity under the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988. Commercial access will be allowed for this purpose and for this purpose only.

I very strongly commend the bill to the parliament. I think it will have the overwhelming support of my constituents in the Ryan electorate. Democracy in Australia is a century old. Commonwealth citizens in the nation of Australia were given their right to vote in 1901. It is a great privilege to be living in a democratic nation, in a system where one can elect a government or throw a government out as the case may be. It is a great position for a citizen of this country to be in. Whilst there has been a lot of talk and criticism about politics and politicians, I think at the end of the day an overwhelming number of Australians would feel that they would rather have the system that they have in place in this country than the systems that exist in many other parts of the world.

One can look around the world and see countries that are struggling, that have enormous problems, that are experiencing civil war, that have chaos and that have no economic prospects of giving their people a better life. I think it is a reasonable statement to make that countries that have governments duly elected by their people have greater prospects of delivering benefits to their people and to their societies because they have a mandate to govern. They have something special, and that is legitimacy through their people.

There is a lesson for the opposition in my concluding remarks. A government is given legitimacy, and to try to point out otherwise is only delivering a blow to the people of Australia. It is saying to them that their decision to vote for candidate X, Y, Z or for party X, Y, Z was wrong, incorrect or illegitimate and that they should have known better and voted for someone else. I think that is an astonishing position to take. What any party in opposition should say is: ‘Yes, you voted for the other crowd on the last occasion, but we think we can do a better job and this is why. These are our policies, these are our credentials and these are our talents, and we are going to put them forward to you at the next election.’ They should come up with alternative policies and show the people that sort of respect.

See this speech in context