Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am not telling you anything, member for Fisher. The idea that the rolls should close when the writs are issued has an interesting side to it. The member for Goldstein said that this is a bad measure. If it is such a measure why did the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, wait five or six days after telling everyone when the election was going to be before issuing the writs? He did not announce the election and issue the writs immediately. He waited for a period of time. Any future government or future Prime Minister would also have the same facility available to them. Whether or not seven days is written into law, a simple administrative act by the government of the day can ensure that what is regarded as fair is put into place. So I question the suggestion by the member for Goldstein that the opposition’s proposals were 40 per cent more effective. I do not think he can draw that from the evidence that was given to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It is not my recollection of the evidence given by the AEC that they believed that this measure provided an opportunity for identity fraud. In the past, people have had a week to correct their enrolment details. I doubt that that has acted as a discouragement in any way to people wanting to update their enrolments. In fact, it is more likely that in order to change the simplest detail, people have had to fill out the entire enrolment form again. This issue is being addressed in the bills before us.

The member for Goldstein was also very critical of the idea of people turning up to cast a provisional vote without having to provide proof of identity. We say that the AEC ought to be able to revert to the old system of checking the signature of a person casting a provisional vote against their previously held signatures. Whether or not we are fans of the genre, the forensic police programs that we view on television show us just how quickly material of that nature can be checked and sorted. The main point I want to make about this is that of course nobody attends a polling booth to make a provisional vote; they attend a polling booth to make an ordinary vote. They cannot make an ordinary vote when, for one reason or another, their enrolment details are not held and, hence, they need to make a provisional vote. I support—and I am not necessarily alone in this, but I have not had a great deal of support—each and every Australian voter being given a voter card, an electronic swipe card. Let us move towards using the technology. Every person’s right to vote would be directed by that card. However, that seems to be a little beyond what the people of Australia are looking for at the moment.

The evidence of identity for provisional voting and close of roll provisions in this legislation are going to be opposed by the coalition. The coalition will thereby be keeping in place barriers against people voting. One of the hallmarks of our voting system should be that people are able to vote with great ease. I note with a degree of pleasure that the majority of the measures in the modernisation bill are to be supported by the coalition. I think it is important, at a time when there are so many debates about the voting age, that we not lose sight of the issue at hand. People being able to place their name on the electoral roll at the age of 16 and vote in elections that occur no less than two years after they turn 16 will hopefully ensure that many more young people take an interest in the national affairs of the country.

The reduction in the material required as evidence of identity upon enrolment and upon change of name is a sensible move. People’s identities have to be proven in the first instance anyway, and I can think of no reason why people should have to continue, throughout their lives, to prove that they are who they say they are time and time again.

I am very pleased by the changes in the legislation to the postal voting system. I know, from the hearings of the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters, that the member for Maranoa was very keen to see some serious changes there—particularly because of the remoteness of a number of his constituents. I note that a number of members of my extended family are constituents in electorates just like Maranoa.

See this speech in context