Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments:

(1)    Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 23), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

(2)    Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 8), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

(3)    Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 11), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

(4)    Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 19), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

(5)    Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 22), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”.

I agree with the Special Minister of State that this is an important issue, and the fact that 17 members have chosen to speak on it indicates that it is seen by the members of the House to be important.

I would like to support my amendments on two bases. The import of my amendments are to lower the disqualification period for prisoners from three years to one year, and that would bring it in line with the one-year period that the Constitution provides in section 44(ii) where a person, being a member of parliament or standing as a member of parliament:

Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer …

               …            …            …

… shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

It seems to me that the argument that the provision of the right to vote and the right to be selected and to sit in the parliament are unconnected is not a good argument. Indeed, the High Court in its majority judgment in Roach v Electoral Commissioner specifically said—and they were Justices Gummow, Kirby and Crennan—that the Commonwealth had argued:

… that whatever implication or principle may be evident in the grounds in s 44(ii) for disqualification of senators and members, and of candidates for election, s 44(ii) is disconnected from consideration of the validity of the denial by s 93(8AA) of the exercise of the franchise.

The court said:

That submission should be rejected as being too wide.

In other words, the connection does maintain.

If you look at state governments, they have a variety of disqualification periods, from no disqualification, to one year, to three years, to five years and so on. It is important that here at the Commonwealth level we set a true basis for the decision that we as a parliament exercise the right given to us in the Constitution to determine when the franchise can be exercised, and more particularly in what circumstances you can be disqualified from exercising that right to vote, which is seen as being part of what a citizen does when they are part of the community.

But in addition to that I want to point out that, on a practical level, whereas the court in that narrow 4-3 decision said that any person who is subject to a prison sentence should be disqualified for voting was too broad, very often a dissenting judgement in a High Court case subsequently becomes the prevailing decision of the day because the High Court is not bound by its own decisions. I also want to point out, as I did in the course of my speech in the second reading debate, that the nature of the criminality of people who are serving sentences of less than two years is really very significant. I cited three examples, and I will cite them again because it is important that we know just what sort of person we are talking about when we say they should be disqualified while serving that sentence.

One person is serving two years for aggravated burglary, false imprisonment, armed robbery and theft. The victim of the attack was tied to a chair with an electrical cord, doused with kerosene, forced to eat dog food and hit over the head with a broom handle. The attacker stole a number of items from the man and forced him to disclose his ATM PIN before robbing his bank account of $300. If we pass my amendment, this offender would not be allowed to vote. If the government’s position of three years is maintained, he will be entitled to vote—as indeed will this person with a 2½-year sentence: a teacher who sexually abused three young boys at school and on camping trips in Western Australia. He lured children into his office block, stripped them down—I will not going into further details. A boy was assaulted. Another boy was assaulted in a tent on a camping trip, as were two other boys under 14 and so on. He got 2½ years. Under my amendment as moved, he cannot vote. (Time expired)

See this speech in context