Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to add my very clear support to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. In doing so, I would like to focus particularly on the first four schedules of the bill that deal with amendments arising from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In doing so, I say to the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, and the other members of the opposition who have spoken on this legislation that the one point I do agree with them on is that Australia has a very proud democratic tradition and that our electoral process and the electoral institutions upon which our democracy is built have stood the test of time and demonstrate that we are one of the most progressive democratic countries and have a longstanding and proud tradition when it comes to democratic elections. But it is there that I part ways in terms of agreement because I actually believe that these amendments, rather than eroding the integrity of the electoral system, restore the integrity that was taken away by the changes that were made by the Howard government in 2006, particularly when looking at the issue around the closure of rolls.

I think it is important to note—and I suspect that everyone in this House would agree—that there unfortunately does appear to be a growing cynicism about and a level of disinterest in our electoral system. Whilst many suggest that perhaps it is our antics and behaviour in this House that contribute to people’s cynicism about the electoral process, it may well be the way that government sometimes takes the community for granted and makes decisions that do not have community and electoral support that allows voters to develop feelings of frustration with the process. But I actually believe the ability to give everyone in this country, every citizen who is of voting age, full and free access to the electoral system is the only way in which we can restore the support and the interest once again of voters in this country. I believe that in fact the amendments that were introduced and the laws that were changed in 2006 helped fuel this disinterest by making it harder for people to enrol to vote and to make their way through the electoral system. Therefore, whilst there may be a perception about other political decisions that affected their disinterest, I believe that those changes were the cement that prevented people from feeling fully engaged in the electoral process.

What is important is that once you start to disenfranchise ordinary people and discourage their participation in the electoral system you only increase the influence of elites, of powerful lobby groups and of certain sectional interests within our community that start to dominate the political debate within this country and influence governments and their decisions. It goes fundamentally to the principle of democracy—a principle that was fought for long and hard by many of the founders of the Labor Party but which I think is shared by those who support all political parties in this country—and that is the right to vote.

But we must remember that that principle must also go with true representation. The right to vote and the support for democratically elected parliaments can only have a strong grounding in a representative parliament if all people within a community are entitled to vote and have easy access to the electoral system. We cannot have a truly democratic parliament if it is not representative, and we cannot have a representative parliament if certain sections of our community are excluded from voting and from the electoral process. That is why I believe that the first two schedules in particular—those which are the source of contention—are the most significant in this particular debate. I am very pleased that Senator Ludwig has brought these amendments to the parliament and I am very pleased that he has the support of the government to introduce these amendments to see the removal of the change to the close-of-rolls period and to open up the opportunity for people who would be provisional voters to participate in the electoral process.

The first schedule, as I said, restores the close-of-rolls period. The changes that were made in 2006 meant that rolls closed at eight o’clock on the night that the writs were issued. This was a significant change because it disenfranchised quite a number of people. It disenfranchised people who might not necessarily contribute to the parliamentary or democratic process in any way other than by simply exercising their vote. Unfortunately, not everybody in this country is a political animal. They do not stay glued to the news, The 7.30 Report, Lateline, A Current Affair, 60 Minutes or all of the other media that endlessly discuss politics day in and day out like we do.

Often, people are only reminded of their need to enrol or the need to change their enrolment because they hear of an election being announced. That is not a reason to disenfranchise them from the electoral process. In fact, it means that if we do not support these amendments, there will be a number of those people—key people within the community—who will be excluded. The current estimate is that there are now around 1.4 million people who are not on the electoral roll. Two-thirds of those people are aged between 18 and 39. If we are going to get young people involved in the political process and if we are going to maintain the integrity and strength of our democratic institutions from here well into the future, we must get people engaged in the electoral process as soon as possible. That begins by casting a vote. It begins by the rite of passage when you are 18 of walking into a polling booth and making a choice about the person who you wish to represent you in the parliament. It is an important part. We hope that as a result of casting that vote many people, particularly young people, will become further engaged in the democratic process and will become more actively involved in parliamentary and political debates, whether it is through their workplaces, through their field of study or whatever. But it begins with the right to vote and it begins with the exercising of that right to vote. That is why this amendment is so important.

I have been advised that in 2007 it was estimated that more than 50,000 people were prevented from enrolling because of the change in the close of rolls. It is actually quite significant that that number of people were excluded from the electoral process because they were not a 24/7 political animal and because they only get switched on by key events—and often the calling of an election is a key event. It does not mean that their vote is not important, that their contribution is not important and that they should not be given the right to participate. The second change that is proposed in this bill is regarding the rules around provisional voters. Apparently around 27,000 voters were rejected in 2007 because they did not turn up with the proof of identity that was required in order to cast their vote under the previous government’s amendment. This was a change that was only made a few years ago. The integrity of our electoral system over the past 100 years prior to that had not seen major upheavals or major rorting of the system. All that change did was, once again, exclude a further 27,000 voters from exercising their democratic right to vote. When you put those two figures together you start to talk about a significant section of the Australian community. When you consider the number of people who sit in this House on very, very slim margins, you realise that the exclusion of those people could have actually changed results in a number of key marginal seats on both sides of the House. That is when we start to talk about the importance of including everybody in the electoral process and giving them as much access and opportunity to exercise their right to vote.

The other thing I am particularly concerned about, and one that I would really like to support in these particular amendments, is the ability to change enrolment details electronically. This is a new initiative by the government. I am pleased to see the minister is embracing the digital age. Once again, if we are going to talk about having all Australians as part of the democratic community engaged in the electoral process, if we are going to get young people thinking about their democratic rights and exercising their right to vote, we have to start looking at ways in which we can use electronic media opportunities, such as via the net and other means, to encourage young people to participate. If this legislation is passed, people will be able to change their enrolment details electronically which therefore enables the electoral process on the day of voting to run much more smoothly because people will have been enrolled correctly. That will not only have a significant impact on increasing the number of people that exercise their right to vote, it will also encourage and demonstrate to people that this government wants to give them every opportunity to participate.

I am pleased that in order to enrol it is still a requirement that the form is filled out physically and that a signature is required, but once you are part of the system this government is not going to disenfranchise you simply because you moved house, you changed jobs, or for whatever reason you were no longer living where you were first enrolled. If we make it easier for people to change their enrolment details, we increase representation in this parliament because we increase the number of people who are exercising their democratic right to vote. On top of that, that particular amendment also makes it much easier for the Australian Electoral Commission to do its job and to do it properly. It ensures that our rolls are protected and accurate, that the information is properly processed and that the data is accurate at the beginning of the election cycle. These changes will not only involve more people and give them a greater right to participate, they will, importantly, encourage electronic amendments and make it much easier for people working within the electoral commission.

The other amendment to this bill that was put forward by the minister was to include a pre-poll vote as an ordinary vote on election night. I think that this is a very exciting and quite progressive initiative by the minister and it is one that I am more than happy to support. Once again, if we are talking about expanding the franchise and encouraging more people to be involved, we all know that in this day and age people are busy, that people work on weekends and that for religious reasons or a whole range of reasons people cannot vote on the particular day but want to vote within their electorate and want to make sure that their vote is counted. They exercise the option of pre-poll voting. In fact, apparently around 15 per cent of voters in the last election were pre-poll voters. This initiative means that those pre-poll votes that are cast in the electorate in which the voter resides or is enrolled will be counted on the night. They are not bundled up with all the other provisional votes to go through the fairly arduous bureaucracy that goes around envelopes, section votes and all of the things that can often delay the counting and the electoral process for days, or weeks in some cases, when it comes to election results. Those votes can be counted on the night.

I know that many people in this House will realise that their scrutineers on the day may not be so happy about having a few more votes to count but, if it means that in some of those very, very close results we can get a clearer outcome on the night because votes that have exactly the same status as those cast on the actual day can be counted that night, it could make for a much easier time in the days and weeks to come. In fact, it is estimated that, if those votes had been able to be counted on the night in the last election, there were some 667,000 votes that could have been counted that night. As we know, with the very close margins that occurred on both sides of the House in some cases, it could have meant that there was actually a result that night rather than an enormous amount of anxiety for candidates but also an enormous number of commitments having to be made by volunteers, scrutineers and the like as well as commission staff in the days afterwards, counting votes that really should have been counted on the night.

Those four schedules within this bill go to the heart of improving the integrity of our electoral system. They do not reduce the integrity. They do not open the system up to rorting. They do not in any way undermine or diminish the integrity of our electoral processes. Those amendments existed prior to 2006, as I have said. We had many general elections prior to that, and I am sure that many in this House who have been here a lot longer than me would know that the integrity of the system has never been questioned to the extent that required the draconian amendments that were designed to simply exclude, discourage and disenfranchise certain sections of the community rather than encourage people to participate in the democratic process.

If there are concerns about the integrity of an election, if there are concerns about the electoral process and if there are concerns of certain outcomes being the result of an abuse of the electoral system, there are mechanisms which deal with that. The underpinning of our democratic system is that there are legislative and other mechanisms that ensure the integrity of the electoral process. It is fundamental to our democratic process.

See this speech in context