Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There have been a number of significant electoral reforms in this country since Federation in 1901. Just a year after Federation, Australia was among the first to give women the vote. In 1967—pitifully late and 111 years after they had been given the right to vote within South Australia—we as a nation gave Aboriginal Australians the vote. In 1973 we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Importantly, each of these measures allowed more people to vote. At no time have women, Aboriginal people or young adults been unaffected by the decisions of the Australian government, so it is only just that they are allowed a say in deciding who should govern Australia. Electoral reform which increases involvement in the democratic process makes a great deal of sense. But the changes in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 are not about increasing involvement. They are generally about narrowing participation and, as such, are undemocratic.

However, some of the changes in the legislation are understandable. Having a requirement for people to show identification when they go to vote does not seem unreasonable to me. Voting is a very serious business. If you need ID to borrow a DVD or a video, you should need ID to cast your vote at election time. Having said that, it appears that there is actually no need for this in Australia because electoral fraud is almost nonexistent. The number of convictions for electoral fraud is very low in this country. As I said, it is nonexistent.

I also support moves to ensure that the electoral roll is accurate and up-to-date. But making it harder for people to enrol will not improve our democracy. Young Australians, in particular, who are not experienced in participating in our national democracy and who are just starting their lives as young adults are naturally going to be preoccupied with concerns other than politics. We should not be trying to exclude them for failing to be ultraconscientious with the timing of their enrolment. On the contrary, we should be encouraging their engagement with the process.

Requiring new enrollees to substantiate their identity and address will mean that the Australian Electoral Commission’s attempts to enrol students while they are still at high school could be hindered. It will mean that, whereas someone might have quickly completed an enrolment form or changed their address details and posted the form off without much thought, they will put it off indefinitely because they will need to send proof of identity or take the documentation to the AEC personally. The result will not be an improvement in the integrity of the roll. It will instead result in fewer new enrolments—fewer people whom we expect to vote being able to vote.

Closing the electoral roll on the day the election is called rather than allowing for five working days for people to enrol or to update their address details also narrows rather than broadens participation in our democracy. Fewer people will update their address. This legislation does the opposite of improving the integrity of the roll. It makes it much more likely that tens of thousands of people, just within South Australia, will be voting for candidates running in electorates other than the one in which they live. It will mean that people will have to vote for or against candidates whom they probably have never heard of and whose election material they certainly have never had the opportunity to peruse. It will mean that election results in any given division could be skewed in favour of preferences of those with the most stable accommodation arrangements and a high proportion of those who have already moved out of the electorate. The result would also be potentially skewed against the preference of the first-time voter.

In South Australia, closing the roll early would make it harder for almost 50,000 voters to cast their vote in the next federal election. At the last election, just within the seat of Hindmarsh, 4,854 voters corrected their enrolment details in the five days immediately after the election was called. Throughout South Australia, 49,893 voters updated their enrolment details during that period. Because younger people tend to move house more often, younger voters would be most disadvantaged by this change.

In 2004 in Hindmarsh, 872 voters who updated their details were first-time voters. Throughout South Australia, 9,163 voters who would be excluded under these changes were first-time voters. Had these changes been in place in 2004, there is a good chance that many young people and people who had changed their address would not have voted in the seat of Hindmarsh. I am sure the case is mirrored in many electorates and many marginal seats around the country.

There are times when a small number of votes determines the election of MPs and even governments, so it is essential that our system is as representative of the whole population as possible. Virtually all adult Australians have an equal right and obligation to vote, and those who from time to time move house should have as much of a voice as those who live in one place for decades.

The bill seeks to change the definition of ‘associated entity’. Under the Electoral Act as it stands, an associated entity is one which is ‘controlled by one or more registered political parties or one which operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties’. The former Special Minister of State, Senator Eric Abetz, addressed the Sydney Institute about this matter in early October. It seems he was incensed that organisations with charity status were vocal and active during the federal election campaign of 2004. He referred to the campaigns run by the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund and the RSPCA. He was distressed that these organisations spoke up about the environment policies of the two major parties.

I am distressed that he would seek to stop organisations from speaking up. When a member of the public makes a donation to one of these organisations, they do so because they expect them to speak up at such times. It is the responsibility of these organisations to try and influence government policy, so it is ridiculous and enormously undemocratic to limit the tax-deductible status of these organisations because they comment on government policy. If there is strong and sensible opposition to government policy coming from these groups then it is incumbent on the government to consider what is being said. It is undemocratic to try to shut up organisations—or shut them out—on the basis that they disagree with you. It shows a lack of genuine conviction on policy matters if you are afraid of open debate on these issues.

The matter of party names is interesting. In much the same way that brand names are copyrighted, there is in my view some room for reform in this area to ensure that voters are not misled by party names. Moves towards using improvements in technology to improve our voting system are interesting and, in my view, should be investigated. Electronic voting could increase participation by voters who would otherwise find it hard to vote—for example, those living overseas and those who cannot get to a voting booth for health reasons. Electronic voting could also help to reduce the number of accidental informal votes, and that would help to improve our electoral system. Upcoming trials are of great interest to me. While it is obviously essential that we ensure the security of these systems and continue to allow people who are not comfortable with the technology to cast their vote in the old-fashioned way, I think a gradual move towards electronic voting makes a great deal of sense.

People’s fear of electoral fraud—and by that I mean fraud by the system and its players, not fraud by voters of doubtful identity—will naturally be a brake on any progress made in this direction. Some people still look with suspicion at the prospect of completing their ballot papers with a pencil for fear that some apparatchik in a backroom will rub out their preferences and insert those that will produce the correct result. But I am sure that this and similar misunderstandings are on the decrease.

I also think a four-year set term makes sense. It is hard work to develop and implement policy and see results within three years. In some portfolio areas a four-year term will not make much difference, but an approach which allows for steady, longer term policy decisions makes for better government.

I am pleased that so-called voluntary voting is not on the cards in this round of electoral reforms. I think the South Australian approach of being more inclusive deserves more consideration than the idea of voluntary attendance at voting booths. In South Australia, with the use of registered tickets—similar to the above-the-line voting system used to direct preferences in the Senate—even votes that the AEC may consider informal can be included in the count. If, for example, a person votes ‘1’ for the ‘Sandgropers Party’ and nothing else, and the Sandgropers Party has registered a ticket for that electorate, the vote can eventually be counted as formal. If and when that candidate is eliminated, the vote simply follows the preferences indicated on the ticket. It is very simple and, more importantly, highly inclusive. It takes compulsory preferential voting to a new high. From memory, it is the exact opposite of what is happening in New South Wales.

We have the privilege of living in a democratic country and we should not see the quality of our democracy eroded by accident. When people show up at the polling booth on election day, if they do not want to vote they just tick off their name. If they want to tell politicians how frustrated they are, they may choose to vote informally by leaving the ballot paper blank. If they think that one candidate or party better represents their values than another, they vote and mark their preferences accordingly. But they do show up; they do not fail to vote because they have been caught up with other things that day or because they think the system does not want them involved. People should have no reason to even suspect that this system of government does not care for their input, that it does not want them involved. More than any of the changes flagged in these reforms, it is people’s attendance and necessary involvement that protects the integrity of our electoral system.

In a genuine democracy all votes are equal; under these electoral reforms it seems that some votes are more equal than others. In a strong and healthy democracy, the people who have to live by the rules and decisions of the government get to elect the decision-makers; citizens are supported and encouraged to participate, and their right to do so is never restricted or eroded; and everyone has the right to speak up about what matters to them, regardless of what they believe, how much they earn, where they live or how long they live in a certain place.

See this speech in context