Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010 implements two key election promises made by the government prior to the last election. Firstly, it restores the close of rolls period to seven days after the issue of the writs for the election and repeals the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity. The bill also implements three efficiency measures that were recommended by the Australian Electoral Commission to help them administer the act. One modernises the enrolment process to enable electors to update their enrolment details electronically. The second allows flexibility in how and where enrolment transactions are processed. The third enables the counting of prepolls cast in an elector’s home division as ordinary votes, which will allow them to be counted on the night of the election.

I think that whenever we consider legislation such as this we need to look at what the purpose of an election is. When I think of an election I see it as the opportunity for people to exercise their democratic right to cast a vote. It is about allowing people to determine who should govern them. It is about people having a say. Unfortunately, under the Howard government this was made more and more difficult for people, particularly young people. I remember how disgusted I was when I saw the legislation that changed the time that people could enrol and made it so much harder for people to cast their votes. I have listened to members of the opposition speak on this legislation, and they do not want to see change. They are all about winning an election at any cost, not about ensuring that Australian people have the right to cast their votes. They are also making a judgment that those people who are not enrolled are people who will not vote for them. I think it is an absolute disgrace. It is all about manipulating the outcome of elections rather than ensuring that every Australian has every possible opportunity to cast their vote.

I will talk a little about the restoration of the closing of the roll period to seven days after the issue of the writs for an election. During the last election there were a number of young people in my electorate who came to my office and expressed their desire to vote in the election. I had to say to them: ‘We can give you a form to enrol. Even though in previous elections you would have had up to seven days to register to vote, unfortunately, because of the action of the Howard government, you will be unable to cast your vote. You will be unable to have a say about who will represent you in the federal parliament.’ They were quite disgusted. I do not know how those young people would have voted. They may have voted for the Howard government. But the anger they expressed about not being able to enrol—the anger they expressed about being denied the right to cast their vote—will, I think, be imprinted on them for eternity. They will probably think very carefully before they cast a vote for the coalition, because they saw that their right to vote was taken from them at the last election. That is a very important issue, because in a democracy like Australia we have an overriding principle that people should be able to cast their vote and have a say about who should represent them. I need to very strongly put on the record my absolute disgust and the disgust of a number of young people in my electorate at the previous government.

The second issue that I want to spend a little bit of time on is the second part of the major change, which is allowing the repeal of the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence when they cast their vote. Point 1: every other voter does not have to provide evidence when they cast their vote. Could you imagine the length of the lines if every person that went to cast a vote had to pull out their ID? Once again, I think this is based on the premise that the previous government had that people who cast provisional votes were less likely to vote for them and, maybe because they tended to move around a bit or for whatever reason, were less likely to have that ID with them. I think that was borne out in the last election, because at the last election approximately 25 per cent of provisional voters were unable to produce evidence of identity on polling day. That is one-quarter of the people.

I do not believe—and I do not think any reasonable person could believe—that 25 per cent of provisional voters were people there to rort the system. They were not; they were just ordinary Australians who did not have identification with them. They probably were not as organised as other Australians. They had their democratic right to cast a vote taken from them simply because they did not have ID. I think it is worth putting on the record that only 20 per cent of electors produced evidence after the elections. There were 27,000 voters rejected at preliminary scrutiny.

There is another way of doing it. If the divisional returning officer doubts the signature on the envelope, he can check that. That is a way that is much more encouraging to people and allows more people to cast their vote. I believe that legislation that deals with providing people with the right to vote should be about that. It should ensure that people do have the right to vote. It should not be about putting in place barriers for people voting. Under the Howard government, there were certain groups for whom barriers were placed in front of voting. I may be doing a disservice to the Howard government—I may be doing a disservice to the opposition parties—when I say that I believe that that tended to be skewed towards groups that the then government believed would not support them. I think they stand condemned for that. Elections are about ensuring that people have the right to say who should be in power in the federal parliament and who should represent them. They are not about manipulation and ensuring that a particular party is re-elected. I strongly support those two amendments in this legislation.

I would also like to say that I support the efficiency measures. I think it is important that we listen to the AEC and put in place the recommendations that they made about modernising the enrolment process. That enables electors to update their enrolment details electronically. We are in an electronic age, so that should be adopted. Allowing flexibility in how and where enrolment transactions are processed should also be accepted. Enabling the counting of prepoll votes cast in an elector’s home division as ordinary votes where possible on election night will be of great benefit both to the AEC and, I think, to the whole of Australia. It will give us a better understanding of the outcomes of elections on the night of the election and should be supported.

I need to finish by saying that as members of parliament we have a responsibility to ensure that all Australians have their right to vote. We should do everything that we can to facilitate that right, and we should not be putting barriers in front of people, trying to prevent them from casting their vote. The role of government is about empowering; it is not about manipulating election results. I strongly support the legislation that we have before us today.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. This is an important bill for a number of reasons. It will provide a significant rebalance to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Electoral Act; and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, the referendum act. It implements recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, JSCEM, and meets a 2007 election commitment.

The bill has drawn extensive debate from both sides of parliament. However, there is a golden thread which runs through election law making in this place. Election laws should be changed only with the support of both sides of the parliament. This is to maintain the stability, trust and integrity of our system. Today’s amendments aim to rebalance the Electoral Act since changes in 2006 were made in a partisan way and for partisan advantage. They were done because they could be done, and they have done no good.

Today’s amendments will encourage all eligible voters to participate in the electoral process by removing barriers to enrolment, voting and vote counting. By simplifying and modernising the electoral process, fewer people will drop out of the system. Let us be clear: we are making these changes to rebalance the former government’s lopsided, misguided and self-interested 2006 amendments. In fact, the Australian Electoral Commission has estimated that 1.5 million eligible voters today are not currently listed on the electoral roll. That is 10 per cent of the voting population of our nation disenfranchised. Those opposite should not be surprised. It is what was intended in 2006. Clearly, today’s amendments are needed.

Schedule 1of the bill will restore the close-of-rolls period to seven days. The Howard government amended the Electoral Act to close new enrolments on the day of the issue of the writ. They argued that these changes were needed to prevent wide-scale election fraud. However, the AEC has advised that there is no evidence of wide-scale election fraud. This finding was supported by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That committee found that there is no evidence to justify restricting access to the roll, particularly for young Australians and those who move often.

In 2006, the amendment discouraged enrolment, and that is exactly what it was meant to do. That was the catalyst for the Australian Labor Party’s commitment to restore the close-of-rolls period to seven days. This will ensure that new voters have ample time to be included on the electoral roll before a federal election. The importance of this measure was reinforced by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In fact, it was the first recommendation of that committee.

Schedule 2 of the bill will repeal the identity requirement for provisional voters. It will, quite frankly, make it fairer and easier to participate in the electoral process. Again, the act will err on the side of inclusion in, not exclusion from, the electoral process. Currently, electors are not permitted to cast a provisional vote at a polling place without proof of identity. Currently, if you do not provide proof of identity on the date of the election or by the preceding Friday, the provisional vote—your vote—is excluded.

We all understand the difficulty of this identity requirement. In fact, it is unrealistic and runs counter to both the philosophy of inclusion and the principle that the roll of electors is just that: a roll of electors. Necessary to this is voter identity. Culture and practice have seen identity established through signature and address identification. The former government argued that the proof of identity requirement was needed to prevent widespread election fraud. However, the AEC has advised that there is no evidence of wide-scale election fraud.

The electorate I represent, Brand, has a high number of fly-in fly-out workers who were not able to meet the requirement of the 2006 amendment, so their vote was excluded from the count. Additionally, this requirement has meant that silent electors whose name is on the certified list but have a suppressed address are required to provide proof of identity. The requirement also applies to a voter who may have an unusual name and spelling. Some 27,000 votes were excluded in the last election as a result of these provisions. The new requirement will allow the signature on the provisional vote envelope to be checked against previously lodged enrolment forms so as to confirm an elector’s identity. This, quite simply, makes sense and is consistent with the practical implementation of the act and the electoral culture and practice in our nation for over a generation. We understand that electors want to vote. They want a simple, transparent and easy-to-negotiate electoral system which errs on the side of inclusion.

Then we come to the way the votes are counted. Schedule 3 of the bill will allow prepoll votes to be counted as ordinary votes. Prepoll provides the option for electors to vote early because of other commitments. Recent elections have seen an increase in the demand for prepolling. At the last 2007 federal election 15 per cent of the total votes cast were cast prior to the election date. In my electorate of Brand almost 12,000 early votes were cast. This remarkable increase in early voting was caused, on my patch, by the deployment of the navy ship HMAS Arunta from Garden Island to the Gulf on 12 November 2007, two weeks prior to the election. I mentioned earlier the fly-in fly-out workforce, which is significant in the electorate of Brand in the communities of Kwinana, Rockingham and Mandurah. The ageing population means that older people find it more convenient to turn up in the two weeks or so prior to an election to vote in more comfort. At 14 per cent, Brand has more aged people—more people over the age of 65—than the national average.

More prepoll votes—or early votes—means that the AEC has to change the protocols to count these votes. Under the current system, prepoll votes are not counted on the day and take between six and 12 days to pass through the system. This can delay the determination of the election in some seats, potentially affecting when we know who will form a government. Australians want to know on the night who won and delay can lead to distrust, speculation and uncertainty. These amendments will see the prepoll votes counted as ordinary votes when feasible. In fact, the AEC have estimated that if this amendment had been in place for the 2007 election an additional 667,000 votes would have been counted on polling night. Together, these amendments will maintain the integrity of the electoral system. Voters will be able to get on the roll, then be issued with a ballot paper, be marked off the roll and their ballot paper counted and scrutinised on election day.

Schedule 4 of the bill is administrative and does not directly influence voting patterns and elections. It will, however, increase the AEC’s efficiency, which is significant. Currently, AEC workers distribute work according to the jurisdiction of the electorate and the divisional office. The bill will allow the AEC to allocate work based on workload outside of an election period. At present this is permitted only during the election campaign. The second part of schedule 4 will allow enrolment updates to be provided to the AEC electronically. This is important. Not only will people be provided with greater control of their electoral enrolment details but also the change will simplify and modernise the electoral system. The exchange of information will be legitimised by personal details such as drivers licence number and date of birth. The bill will improve the efficiency of the electoral system.

Schedule 5 of the bill will restrict the number of candidates endorsed by a political party. In the 2009 Bradfield by-election there were 22 candidates. This in itself is not an issue—democracy does provide for choice. However, nine of these candidates were endorsed by a single registered political party. The current provisions do not prohibit political parties from endorsing more than one candidate in each division for an election. For an elector to cast a formal and valid vote they are required to number a ballot paper from 1 with no errors. In the Bradfield by-election the rate of informal votes was nine per cent. The informal vote of the 2007 election in Bradfield was only 4.12 per cent. It does, therefore, seem reasonable to conclude that the multiple endorsement may be implicated in the very high informal vote. This amendment is required to prevent a similar manipulation of the ballot paper. The integrity of the electoral process is at the heart of our political system. The amendments in this bill will make it easier to participate in elections. That is democracy. It makes sense. Electors trust us to create a process which is as easy as possible. Complexity creates confusion.

The Electoral Act, in its current form, has a number of obstacles which hinder its effective operation. I mentioned earlier that the AEC has estimated that approximately 1.5 million eligible voters are simply not enrolled; they are disenfranchised. Two-thirds of them are aged between 18 and 39 years. This bill will reform the electoral process and make it easier for young people to participate. It will provide greater flexibility in the enrolment system and will address declining enrolment rates. The bill will restore the integrity of the electoral roll and the way the electoral roll operates. This is fair and necessary. This bill has encouraged substantial debate from both sides of the House. I took the opportunity to have my staff check the impact of the changes to provisional voting and how those votes were verified in the 2004 and 2007 election. I did that for a number of the speakers who had spoken on this bill.

I noticed that one of the first speakers in the debate was the member for North Sydney. The changes made in 2006 cost the member for North Sydney 449 votes in his electorate. In Mitchell, the impact was that 305 voters did not get their vote counted. In Mayo it was 153, and in the by-election it was 186. In Indi, 334 votes were cast into the garbage bin as a consequence of the changes that were passed by the former government in 2006. In Forrest, the number was 1,072—1,072 people turned up to vote and marked their ballot paper. We do not know how they intended to vote; we just know they turned up to vote, marked their ballot paper and those ballot papers were thrown in the rubbish bin. In O’Connor, 874 ballot papers were not counted. In New England, 584 ballot papers were thrown into the bin. In Bradfield, it was 154; in Lyne, 402; in Fisher, 490; in Bowman, 296; in my electorate of Brand, 998 votes were not counted; in Fremantle, 662; in Hasluck, 530; and in Perth, 613.

The impact of the changes in 2006 has been far reaching. Not only did they disenfranchise 1.5 million Australians but also, clearly, the changes have the capacity to significantly impact election results. Changes such as this are rare, and the changes passed in 2006 should never have happened. They should not have happened because the golden thread that should balance our Electoral Act should always be that both sides of this House agree, and then changes can take place. We know that in 2006 the substantial minority report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters argued strongly against the changes. We know why the changes were made: the former government could make them, and so they were made. They did no good.

Influencing elections is something that we like to do in this place through our ability to carry arguments and our ability to stand up for what is right—not through our ability to change the act to favour one side of politics or the other. The election process is too important for that. The current system is neither as fair nor as effective as it should be. The bill will modernise, simplify and maintain the integrity of our electoral system. It will update the Commonwealth Electoral Act and deliver fairness. I commend the bill to the House.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I am pleased to be summing up the debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010, which I note has drawn significant interest across the political spectrum. It is obviously a very important piece of legislation, meeting two of the Rudd government’s 2007 election commitments and building on several recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Of the 53 recommendations on electoral reform, 45 have been unanimously supported.

In summing up, I thank all the contributors—particularly the member for Barker, sitting there in the background—and wish to explore the five schedules in more detail. The schedule 1 amendment relates to the closing of rolls. The government is fulfilling its pre-election commitment to restore the close of rolls period to seven days after the issue of a writ for an election. I note the coalition does not support this amendment, which is disappointing. It is estimated that 1.5 million eligible voters are not presently enrolled to vote, and the government is committed to enabling all eligible Australians to participate in the electoral process, which is precisely what this measure aims to do. Many eligible Australians do enrol for the first time or update their enrolment details when an election is announced, and that is why extending the close of rolls from three days to seven is so vitally important. This will restore the policy that was in place for the 2004 federal election.

It goes without saying that there is a heightened enrolment activity once the election has been called, and we do acknowledge this. The AEC has, however, advised previously that the seven-day close of roll period is enough time to allow it to conduct the enrolment verification processes it performs for all applications for enrolment. Further, the AEC has advised that there is no evidence of wide-scale electoral fraud, which has been mentioned on an ongoing basis by those opposite. JSCEM also found that there is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud that would justify restricting access to the roll, especially for young Australians and also for people who move often. The opposition to this schedule and baseless claims made by some in the opposition demonstrate that the coalition’s primary interest seems to be keeping people off the electoral roll, not strengthening Australia’s electoral integrity.

Schedule 2 concerns evidence of identity for provisional votes. It removes a range of anomalies relating to provisional votes that have no logical foundation. The Howard government introduced an additional requirement that to cast a provisional vote at a polling place on polling day a person must provide a polling official with evidence of identity at the time of voting or by the first Friday following polling day. If this identity requirement was not met, this person’s provisional vote was excluded from the count. The result of this requirement has been that a silent elector, whose name is on a certified list but has an address that is suppressed, is required to provide evidence of identity, otherwise their vote will be excluded. A voter who may be on the certified list but whose name could not be found by the polling official, such as if their name had an unusual spelling, would be required to provide evidence of identity, otherwise their vote would be excluded. If the same person had voted by absentee, postal or pre-poll vote rather than by provisional vote, they would not have been required to provide evidence of identity.

The AEC’s estimate is that over 27,000 provisional votes were excluded at the 2007 federal election as a result of the current evidence of identity provisions, and this schedule remedies this. There is no evidence that the Howard government’s evidence requirement for provisional voters did anything to reduce actual or perceived electoral fraud or to suggest provisional voting has more fraudulent behaviour connected to it than any other forms of voting on polling day, nor is there any evidence to suggest any widespread electoral fraud. The bill will, therefore, remove the requirement to provide identity to cast a provisional vote and restores the requirements for provisional voting in the operation of the 2004 election. Votes cast in this manner will, of course, be subject to the same prescriptive preliminary scrutiny processes in the electoral act that apply to all declaration votes. This change will provide the appropriate balance between providing eligible voters with the opportunity to vote in an election and protecting the integrity of the electoral processes.

Schedule 3 amendments relate to prepoll ordinary votes. Schedule 3 of this bill provides for prepoll votes cast in an elector’s home division to be cast and counted as ordinary votes wherever practical. Previously prepoll votes were not counted on election day and took between six and 12 days to pass through preliminary and further scrutiny processes and then for the ballot papers to be counted. This schedule will provide for prepoll ordinary votes to be counted at the close of polling on polling day. In recent elections, more voters have been casting their votes before polling day. At the 2007 federal election almost 15 per cent of the total votes cast were early votes. Indeed, the AEC estimates that, if this amendment had been in place for the 2007 federal election, an additional 667,000 votes would have been counted on polling night. The additional demand for prepoll votes—exacerbated by the fact that these votes are not counted on polling day—increases the likelihood that the outcome of an election will be delayed. The bill maintains the integrity of the electoral process as voters are required to be marked off a certified list before they will be issued with a vote, similar to the way in which voters are scrutinised at a polling place on polling day. This is a measure that was recommended by JSCEM and I welcome the opposition’s support for it.

The amendments in schedule 4 of the bill are administrative and do not affect the voting enrolments, rights and obligations of eligible Australians, but they will make it easier for the AEC to undertake its ordinary operations. Presently the Electoral Act provides that the AEC allocates work—principally being enrolment applications and enrolment changes—through its divisional office network within a state or territory. This bill will expand the operation of workload-sharing ability to non-election periods and will not be limited to the divisional office network in the affected state or territory. These amendments will therefore provide the AEC with additional tools to maintain the electoral roll in a timely and efficient manner.

In addition, this bill will allow for a person who is already on the electoral roll to inform the AEC of a change of address by electronic means. The Electoral Act will still require voters to complete and sign paper forms when enrolling for the first time. Providing a facility for electors already on the roll to update their address electronically will bring the AEC into line with the manner in which the community expects to interact with the government and will provide services similar to those provided by other government agencies, such as the ATO. The bill does retain mechanisms to preserve the integrity of the electoral process—such as regulations enabling the AEC to request information such as drivers licence number and date of birth to ensure the electronic transaction is authentic and has been undertaken by the elector to whom the information relates. We believe that this will improve participation in the electoral system, especially with younger Australians. Because this government is committed to ongoing reform, we will also consider the JSCEM report on the New South Wales smart roll initiative in due course. We are actively investigating whether and how automatic enrolment—which arguably goes much further than electoral enrolment—could be introduced at the Commonwealth level in the medium term.

The fifth and final schedule in this bill restricts the number of candidates that a single registered political party is able to nominate as an endorsed candidate in any one division. This measure arises from a practice at the Bradfield by-election where, of the 22 candidates, nine were endorsed by a registered officer of a single registered political party. The result of this was a significant increase in the informal vote at this election. We believe this amendment is necessary to prevent a similar rise in the informality rate in multiple divisions at the next federal election.

In conclusion, in 2007 the Rudd government came to office with a strong reform agenda. This bill is but one tranche in a large and growing agenda, and I am proud to be able to add to this a bill that builds on the integrity of Australia’s electoral system. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.