Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to take the opportunity to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Australia prides itself on being a free and democratic country, and by most comparable standards we are a democracy. I believe that that is an aspect of Australia that we should hold dearly. Notably, in the oath and affirmation of Australian citizenship the phrase ‘whose democratic beliefs I share’ is the first of three simple but very powerful pledges sworn by new citizens. The reality is that democracy comes in different shades and Australia is no exception to that assessment. True democracy is about much more than ensuring the right to vote or equal value for each vote. It is about ensuring that all the processes leading up to the vote do not in any way discriminate against, disadvantage or disenfranchise any elector, that the voting process itself is non-discriminatory and that voters and the process are not manipulated. Even in many of the free and democratic Western world countries, questions relating to election outcomes frequently arise. Over the years there have been examples of voter eligibility being deliberately made more difficult, complicated ballot papers and phoney candidates all being used as tactics by political candidates and political parties seeking to manipulate election outcomes

Of course, a better educated society is much more difficult to manipulate or deceive. That is why I firmly believe that the better people are educated the better true democracy is served. Not surprisingly, the ruling classes in many countries for years deliberately resisted improving education outcomes for the population at large. Education enlightens and empowers people. The ruling class mentality is regrettably still alive and well amongst those who believe that they were born to rule. So, as the people become better educated, the ruling class, driven by their sense of self-importance and self-interest, inevitably look to other methods of manipulating the election outcome. Money has always been a major determining factor in election outcomes. Promoting political parties and political candidates has become as much a marketing challenge as promoting any other consumer product. And the ultimate success or failure, be it a consumer product or a political candidate, will be very much dependent on the quality of the marketing campaign and that inevitably is dependent on money. It is a simple reality and a fact of modern elections. It is also an example, however, of how democracy can be manipulated.

While the system in Australia is better than that in many other countries, it is still far from perfect. It has, however, always been a Labor government, whether at state or federal level, that has driven the changes that have made our electoral processes much fairer and more transparent. That is very much the case with the measures in this bill. Looking at some of the significant changes to the electoral system in Australia, it has always been a Labor government that has introduced them. I go back to my own state of South Australia, which for many years up until the late 1960s conducted elections under a very much gerrymandered system. In fact, it was in 1970, after Premier Don Dunstan was elected, that the gerrymander was removed and the restrictive system of property franchise that determined the Legislative Council elections was abolished. The new basis of the South Australian electoral laws was full adult franchise and the principle of one vote one value. I can well recall many of the debates that occurred right throughout the 1960s, where in more than one election the Labor Party would get over 50 per cent of the two-party vote and yet was unable to win government simply because of the distortion in the way the electoral process was managed in those days. It was clearly the case that one vote did not have the same value as another, and it was clearly very much the case that some electorates had a greater value than others, particularly those of the inner Adelaide area.

In 1973 the Whitlam government lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Again, I believe that was a very important reform that has undoubtedly given tens of thousands of young people the right and the opportunity to vote.

It was in 1984 that the Hawke government introduced public funding of elections and disclosure of political donations and electoral expenditure. It was the Hawke government in 1984 that established registration of political parties and an independent Australian Electoral Commission. The same Hawke government in 1988 sought in a referendum to alter the Constitution to provide fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. I understand that was mainly directed at the gerrymandering that had been occurring in some of the states, in particular in Queensland. Anyone that understands the history of politics in this country would be well aware of the years of the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland, where for years and years that government ruled despite getting less than 50 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. In one election I believe that it was able to form a government with something like 40 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, clearly highlighting the distortion that was occurring in that state. Again, it took years to get that fixed up. The Hawke government tried to get that result through a referendum to alter the Constitution. Regrettably that referendum failed, as most do. It was the Goss government, when elected in 1989, that finally was able to abolish the Queensland gerrymandered system.

Contrary to the record of the Australian Labor Party, it seems that the coalition members opposite have a track record of trying to prevent people from participating in the electoral process. The decision by the Howard government to close electoral rolls on the day the writs are issued was a deliberate move to create a barrier to people voting. If the Howard government truly believed in democracy it should have been doing the opposite, trying to make it as easy as possible for people to enrol and thereby to vote. There are some 1.4 million eligible electors in Australia that are currently not on the electoral roll. One wonders what the outcome of elections would be if all of those people chose to enrol and then exercised their democratic right. We may well have different governments both at state and federal level. Regardless of what the outcome is, it is my view that the best form of democracy is one where all people who are entitled to vote do so, because then you get a true reflection of the will of the people.

The bulk of the people who were affected by the Howard government’s early closure of the rolls were new citizens and young people who had just reached voting age or who had changed address because of study or work. Those are categories of people that generally are considered to be more disadvantaged for one reason or another. I note that, when it comes to disadvantage, the counterargument used by the coalition members is that we need to maintain the integrity of the electoral system; therefore, the change to close rolls early was done to prevent any form of fraud or manipulation of the electoral rolls. I would like to respond to the question put last night by the member for Bowman that the government should say how it is going to overcome the possibility of fraud and preserve the integrity of the electoral system. That question makes an assumption which is not backed by any evidence whatsoever. In evidence given to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Graeme Innes, the Human Rights and Disability Discrimination Commissioner, said this:

The commission is concerned that early closure of the electoral rolls may lead to the disenfranchisement of many Australians—particularly those who are marginalised, such as young people, new Australian citizens, those in rural and remote areas, homeless and itinerant people, Indigenous people and people with a mental illness or an intellectual disability—due to access difficulties. Thus, the commission recommends that the 2007 amendments which shortened the close of rolls period be repealed and the period between the date of the writ and the close of rolls be extended to seven days to allow enrolment activity during this time.

That is a statement by a person who has no particular political benefit to gain one way or the other but is simply being objective in terms of highlighting how the provision to close the rolls early disenfranchises a large section of the community. In respect of the issue that the member for Bowman raised in the House last night about the integrity of the system, I will quote from university academic, Dr Kathy Edwards, who said in a submission to the same committee:

… the recommendations of the JSCEM in 2005 were made on the basis of speculations and possibilities, not on evidence that any fraudulent activity had, in fact, occurred, and without due consideration of human rights implications. ‘Integrity’, or its lack, thus became a speculative issue, but the possibility that this could hypothetically occur was deemed more important than evidence that disadvantage to particular groups within Australian society was likely to occur should the rolls be closed early.

Dr Kathy Edwards makes the very point that I was making a moment ago: there is no evidence to suggest that the integrity of the electoral system will be put at risk as a result of extending the closing date of the rolls. If there were any risk, one would expect that the authority that would be in the best position to make that judgment would be the Australian Electoral Commission.

Members opposite have not come into this chamber and produced one bit of evidence to suggest that, firstly, extending the closure of the rolls leads to more fraud and, secondly, there is any support for that proposition by the very body in the best position to know, the Australian Electoral Commission. You would think that they would be aware of any rorts that might be taking place. You would think that they would also be in a position to understand which, of all the aspects of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, are more likely to be manipulated. If there were an identified problem then I expect that they would have put their case to the government of the day in order to seek the relevant changes to the act. I am not aware that they have done so in this particular case, nor am I aware that they have opposed the extension of the closure of the rolls.

I also highlight a point made by the member for Lindsay in his address. It was a very good point—that is, if someone has the intent of in any way rorting or manipulating the electoral process then you would think that they would do it well in advance. They would not wait until the last few days to do it. If they have the intent to do so, the opportunities would be there for them and it would have been done in a much more prepared and careful manner well and truly before the election is announced.

The change to the electoral act by the Howard government is an example of how even governments can manipulate the election outcome. By disenfranchising people from being able to vote you certainly can affect the election outcome. Governments have been elected on a handful of votes. I think we could all point to different election outcomes where the government of the day was voted in on the basis of a very few votes. In fact, I can recall one election in South Australia where I believe the final outcome was determined by one vote in one seat. That was all that determined whether the government of the day got a majority or not—one vote. On that basis it is absolutely critical that everybody who is entitled to vote be given the right to do so. Vice versa, if you deny people who are entitled to vote the ability to do so, it highlights the fact that you can get a different government elected.

My electorate office is located in the same building and adjacent to the Australian Electoral Commission’s office for the Division of Makin. With a state election due on 20 March, my office has become a de facto Electoral Commission office, fielding numerous inquiries from people who mistake my office for the electoral office. Many of these queries relate to the very matters that are contained within this bill. The one point I will make is this: from my observation and that of my staff, who over the last two or three weeks have dealt with numerous inquiries about the electoral enrolment process, none of us have come to the conclusion or formed any view that any of those people were being anything other than sincere about coming in to seek assistance so that they could become enrolled. None of them looked like people that were doing so for the purpose of defrauding the system in one way or another and I suspect that that is exactly the kind of evidence that the Australian Electoral Commission would also be providing to the government if they were asked that very question. It is for all of those reasons that it is important that we ensure in every way possible that as many people who are entitled to vote do so.

The last point I make about the issue of extending the enrolment period is this: it has been suggested that it will come at a cost for the Australian Electoral Commission because it places an undue amount of work on the commission for that week or so. If that is the price of democracy, so be it. It is not an issue or a matter that has been raised with the government by the commission; therefore it should not be used as an excuse for denying anyone the opportunity to vote just because it puts an extraordinary burden on the commission during that period of time. If it means that they have to employ additional staff on a temporary basis, again, so be it. It is far more important to ensure that people are given that right.

We live in a society where people do move frequently, where people for a whole range of reasons either travel or are not in a position to know where they might be at the time election is called—more so than ever before. Therefore, the likelihood of people being disenfranchised by being excluded from the voting process is greater unless the government acts to provide as much time as possible for those people to enrol. These recommendations are in line with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

I certainly welcome the support given to other measures in this bill by the opposition. I note that they oppose the provision in respect of extension of the time and the provision relating to identity. On the issue of identity it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of voters of Australia who go into polling booths on the day do not have to provide any form of identity. Why should anyone else be treated any differently? In any event if it were a problem, if it were considered by the Australian Electoral Commission that the issue of identity was creating any kind of fraud or any other kind of problem, you would think that the body that would have made the appropriate recommendation to make the changes would be the Australian Electoral Commission. Again, I have seen nothing from them to suggest that they have a concern with this provision. On the basis of those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context