Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of certain aspects of the administration of the Australian Electoral Commission.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I have pleasure in presenting the committee’s second report for 2007, Review of certain aspects of the administration of the Australian Electoral Commission. With a federal election approaching, it has been a timely exercise for the committee to review certain aspects of the administration of the Australian Electoral Commission. Although it may not sound like a particularly immediately exciting terms of reference that would excite the media or some who look to the two-dimensional aspects of politics to find something scintillating for a 10-second grab, it is very important and fundamental because it goes to the very question of how the AEC is adequately staffed to perform the very important role that it has in maintaining our electoral rolls and maintaining an adequate workforce in the lead-up to an election.

The terms of reference for the inquiry required the committee to direct much of its focus on the staffing arrangements across the AEC’s divisional office network. Currently there are 150 AEC divisional officers in 135 locations around Australia. The AEC is a somewhat unique organisation because its so-called business cycle is influenced by the relatively unpredictable timing of key electoral events and federal elections, which determine workload peaks and impact significantly on staffing requirements. The impacts of the election cycle are a key consideration for the AEC in determining the most appropriate staffing model for divisional officers.

The committee received evidence that raised a number of concerns regarding workforce issues in some AEC divisional offices. These concerns related to employment structure, staffing levels, career opportunities for staff, retention issues and the effectiveness of co-located divisional offices. Some of these concerns result from the AEC implementing a new divisional office staffing profile. To coincide with this new staffing profile the AEC also introduced a process of workload sharing in an effort to combat the diversity of the workload across each of its divisional offices, with some offices being tasked with processing up to three times the number of enrolment transactions as others. Specific concerns came from the co-located divisional office in Chatswood, New South Wales, which services four electoral divisions. The committee conducted a site visit to the Chatswood office as part of its inquiry and appreciated the opportunity to speak directly and openly with AEC employees about some of the issues identified in submissions.

Without an extensive body of evidence to draw on, it is difficult for the committee to determine whether the concerns raised during the inquiry are symptomatic of widespread issues within the AEC. While the committee is not in a position to draw comprehensive conclusions, it considers the concerns that were raised to be significant enough to warrant further investigation. Therefore, the committee has recommended that the Auditor-General examine the issue of workforce planning in the AEC in further detail.

The committee was also asked to consider whether the national tally room should be maintained beyond the next federal election. This was the subject matter of the inquiry that generated most media and public discussion. I am pleased to report that the committee supports the continuation of the tally room and is of the view that the abolition of the tally room would have a negative impact on the perception of the transparency of elections and democracy. Furthermore, the committee notes the value and logic of having a central tally room in the nation’s capital that extends beyond any monetary or logistical considerations. The committee has therefore recommended that the government ensure that the national tally room be retained for future federal elections.

I thank my fellow committee members for their contribution to this inquiry. The member for Melbourne Ports will be speaking on the report in a moment and, although neither he nor any other of the Labor Party members were there to consider the final draft of the report, I take their absence and lack of comment as an indication of bipartisan and unanimous support. I am sure that the member for Melbourne Ports will take the opportunity to make other political comments in any case. I would also like to thank Stephen Boyd, the secretary of the committee, and Justin Baker. (Time expired)

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow my parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Indi. The Review of certain aspects of the administration of the Australian Electoral Commission report makes some reasonable and not very controversial recommendations about the administration of the AEC, and I am sure that an incoming government will give them due consideration. Historically, I too think it would be a pity to abolish the national tally room. As the member for Indi indicated, the presentation of this report gives me an opportunity to discuss electoral matters, presumably for the last time in this parliament since it is obvious that we are about to embark on an election campaign. As the election approaches, both the Australia Electoral Commission and the Australian Labor Party have launched advertisements urging people to enrol to vote. The AEC always runs such campaigns before elections, but this time the message is more urgent because of the changes made last year to the Electoral Act by the Howard government. These changes abolished the traditional five-day period of grace for eligible Australians to enrol when an election is called. For first-time voters the rolls will now close as soon as the writs for the election are issued. Labor opposed this change, which we argued was a step backwards for our democracy. We argued that in a country with compulsory voting it is undemocratic to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of people’s ability to enrol and vote. We estimate that even after the AEC’s campaign at least 100,000 people—mostly first-time voters—will not be enrolled and will lose their vote because of this change. That is about 800 to 900 per seat. For the 2004 election, 136,000 people used the five-day period to enrol.

The government argues that this had to be stopped to prevent electoral fraud, but during the long parliamentary inquiry into the changes it produced no evidence to back up this claim. I would point out that I attended nearly every hearing all around Australia, unlike the member for Indi. Australia has one of the cleanest electoral systems in the world. Electoral fraud was merely an excuse for these retrograde changes—an excuse that fools no-one. If, even after the advertising campaign, the same numbers of 18- to 25-year-olds are not enrolled, this will be a democratic scandal—a scandal that could easily have been avoided by leaving in place the current system that works. A Labor government would reverse these undemocratic restrictions. Of course, everyone should enrol as soon as they become eligible, but the fact is that most 18-to 25-year-olds are absorbed in things other than politics. Some of them leave enrolment until the election is called. The AEC has testified before several inquiries that it has no problem with voters having that right. Labor agrees and, if elected, will restore that right.

But Labor wants to go further than just reversing these undemocratic changes. We want to expand Australia’s democracy to make it more effective and better equipped to serve the needs of the Australian people. That is why we want the federal parliament to move to fixed four-year terms—the same system that operates successfully in Victoria and many other places. This will produce a government less driven by short-term electoral advantage and also remove the Prime Minister’s right to pick an election date that suits his party.

I often disagree with the Melbourne Agein fact, today I have an article published in another newspaper which is critical of the Agebut I thoroughly agree with their editorial yesterday on this issue. It argues:

That the Prime Minister still determines the election date, and leaves the country on tenterhooks while he makes up his mind, is something that requires revision in the light of recent days. The country at large has been in stasis because of the internal wrangling of a political party that happens to be the Government. The best way to avoid a recurrence is to adopt fixed terms—four years is more likely to encourage effective government than three—with a set election date.

Labor also wants to revive the debate about Australia’s head of state, which has lost momentum since the 1999 referendum. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined a staged process to move this issue forward, with a plebiscite to gain agreement on a model for an Australian head of state, then moving to a referendum to decide the issue. A referendum on fixed four-year terms could be held at the same time.

Australia has one of the world’s most advanced democratic systems, but we will only keep it if we resist all attempts to undermine it for political advantage. The Howard government has been driven purely by its own self-interest in closing the electoral roll and effectively disenfranchising young people in particular, who it does not think will vote for it. A Labor government will reverse these undemocratic changes, restore fairness to our electoral and parliamentary systems, and move to make them even better.