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

In speaking to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2012 I will be drawing on the dissenting report which the opposition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters wrote and which was tabled in this House only some minutes ago.

I begin by saying that this administration bill contains two provisions on which there is agreement between the government and the opposition. The first is that which brings forward the deadline for applications for postal votes by one day—that is, from the Thursday before polling day to the Wednesday before polling day. We think that this is a sensible move because, as the legislation currently stands, people who get their postal vote application in at the last minute are very likely not to be successful in having it in in time. We think that the Wednesday is a more realistic deadline. The second is the provision which provides for further fixed periods of time to be provided to the augmented Electoral Commission, as defined in section 70 of the Electoral Act, to complete its inquiries into objections against proposed redistributions in electoral boundaries. Basically the new provision deals with the situation where a redistribution is on foot when an election is called, and this part of the act, as it stands, certainly needs to be tidied up.

I said earlier in making remarks on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that the integrity of the roll, on the one hand, and the wish to put as many people on it as possible, on the other hand—which is the government's desire—constitutes a great gulf between the government and the opposition. Unfortunately, the Australian Electoral Commission also seems to be dead keen on just sticking people on the roll willy-nilly without having to honour the Electoral Act in its current form—that is, to require people, when they turn 18 or become citizens, to fill out a form and become an enrolled voter. We think that in this country, where we have compulsory registration, it is not onerous to ask somebody to value their vote sufficiently to go to the correct place and fill out a form so there is a record of their signature which can be checked if necessary.

There have long been debates in this place about electoral fraud, and I have no doubt in my mind, having looked at the facts, that it exists. But it has never been pursued. With the coming of technology, however, we ought to be looking at being able to link the rolls in the polling places for each electorate so that, when somebody's name is marked off on one roll, it can be automatically marked off on all the others. I understand that this practice has been trialled in Victoria and worked very successfully, and I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the Australian Electoral Commission to bring it into operation federally. Doing so could get rid of the difficulty we have with multiple voting, which was done in the last election by, I think, some 18,000 people.

However, the day on which the integrity of the rolls is opened up through automatic enrolment will be a very sad day for our system of voting. I said in my earlier speech that the accuracy of government data which is held is very suspect. I cited the number of tax file numbers that were found in 1999, the last time there was a review of tax file numbers. There were 3.2 million more tax file numbers than there were people in Australia at the census prior; there were 185,000 potential duplicate tax records for individuals; and 62 per cent of deceased clients were not recorded as deceased in the sample match. It was pointed out to us in the committee, when we took evidence on the concept of automatic enrolment, that, for instance, a Centrelink roll, which the AEC now uses, is in fact a composite of anything up to 100 other lists that are brought together, that there is no check-in and that the AEC has no ability to check.

So we support the idea of now introducing legislation which will authorise the tax office to give material, the giving of which by a tax official to any other agency or person was previously proscribed an offence, to the Australian Electoral Commission. This legislation will remove the penalty from the Taxation Administration Act in order that the material may be given to the Electoral Commission by a tax officer.

We feel very strongly about the legal decisions that have already been brought down when there have been challenges to election outcomes—and very often less than 1,000 votes can determine whether a seat is won or lost—and about returning to the roll its integrity, and people's confidence in it, by having people go themselves to become an enrolled voter.

This legislation will also do away with the need to have a certificate signed by a person wishing to exercise a prepoll vote. I hear creeping into the language, both from the Electoral Commission and from others, expressions of the idea that we have an election period. We do not; we have an election day. We have many regulations that say when you can have electronic advertisements—up to what date and so on—and speeches formally launching their campaigns are, for a variety of reasons, given by the leaders ever closer to election day. But a whole host of people can be voting before the speeches are made and before the manifestos, if you like, of the parties are put. This means that people who vote before election day are not given all the information which is given to people who are voting on election day.

This is why we feel so strongly about the maintenance of our system of postal votes and of allowing political parties to be part of that process so that they can send out information informing postal voters of what the political parties' attitudes are. We feel that they need to be placed in a similar position to that of someone who is voting on election day and who is able to hear all the arguments and look at all the printed material prior to casting a vote. So we feel that this lessening of the deterrent that exists for people to turn up on election day—where anybody can just turn up to a prepoll because it is easier; they cannot be bothered on election day; or whatever it is—is not in the interests of someone who is considering the vote that they cast on election day. I can see, however, that it is going to be quite important for prepoll if we are to have an election on 14 September, as that will be Yom Kippur for Jewish members of the Australian population, and they feel very sensitive about the way in which that date has been set with no consideration for their very important religious day.

We oppose doing away with the certificate that is presently needed, even though we acknowledge that the nature and character of a prepoll vote has been changed from being a declaration vote to an ordinary vote. This in itself has led to the great difficulty that was encountered in the last election, when the opening of ballot boxes containing prepoll votes prior to the close of the poll at 6 pm on election day became an improper practice when previously it had been a quite proper practice. The reason is that just before the 2010 election the government changed the law so that a prepoll vote, which was previously a declaration vote and therefore could be opened prior to 6 pm on election day, became an ordinary vote so that it would be counted on election night and we would get a quicker outcome. But the problem was that adequate information was not given to all of the electoral offices right across the country, and so they did not know that the change had been made.

We had two instances, one in Boothby and one in the seat of Flynn, where it was picked up scrutineers that the ballots looked orderly, particularly in Boothby, when they should have all been crumpled up and looking a bit disorderly, as they are in an ordinary ballot box. Consequently, the Electoral Commission was tasked with the difficulty of making a decision as to what happened to those ballot papers. They did seek advice from the Australian Government Solicitor, who knew how many votes were involved. They knew that in neither the case of Boothby nor the case of Flynn would excluding those ballot papers from the scrutiny make any difference to the outcome of the declaration of those two seats. But we on the committee did request—and I do acknowledge that the chairman was strong in backing up my request—that the legal opinion which the AEC had sought be made public.

It is quite unusual for government advice from the AEC to be made public, but it was very important in properly considering the question of the AEC's recommendation that, where there was an opening of a ballot box other than in conformity with the act prior to the close of the poll, all those votes should be simply excluded from the scrutiny. It seemed to me to be an appalling proposition because these were people who had cast a vote in good faith and, through no fault of theirs, their vote was to be made informal; their vote was not to be counted. Voter entitlement and voters being confident that their vote, properly cast, would be counted are a very important principle.

The Australian Government Solicitor gave some extraordinary advice. It said: 'In the present circumstances, we consider that the better course of action is not to include the ballot papers in the count and to quarantine those papers, although, for the reasons we discuss below, it is possible that a court might take a different view.' In the case of Mitchell and Bailey, which involved the seat of McEwen, the Federal Court held that a ballot paper must be included in the count if it was a formal vote. It said: 'If a ballot paper is not informal, the officer conducting the scrutiny will have no legal basis for rejecting it. An implied obligation to admit such a ballot paper to the count thereby arises. Once it is admitted, it must be counted.' The advice went on to try and distinguish that case as not being relevant in a way that I do not think is in any way convincing. I found that the subsequent recommendation of the AEC that those votes should be just simply excluded from the scrutiny was a very—dare I use the word—sloppy way of dealing with the problem.

We did take evidence from others who shared our view. The result is that the report recommends that there should be saving provisions. Having done that, the chair went back to the AEC and the AEC came back with another set of saving provisions which it thought might be adequate for the purpose. As I said, the main question that remains between the government and the opposition is that of when the count is conducted. If the votes are not counted on the night and are simply parcelled, sealed and sent off to the DRO and then somebody else does a count, you are going to have a problem with the tally on the night, but, more importantly, it enshrines the principle that citizens have the right to have their vote counted where the error is not theirs.

It is also very important that we maintain the identification of those ballot papers which are at risk. The reason that we are talking about both ballot papers and envelopes is that the box concerned can have a mixture of ballot papers and envelopes—now all ordinary votes but categorised differently in the mode in which they go into the ballot box. I think this question is an important one because it brings out another question which is yet to be dealt with and for which there is no provision in the act at this stage. The first count of the night is put into plastic bags, not boxes, and sealed up. If someone tampers with those, there is still no provision in the act for what happens to those, so that remains a problem for another day.

On the question of the proposal to allow prepoll to occur up to 19 days prior to election day, we on the opposition side have recommended that it should be no greater than 12. It is up to 19 because of the leeway that exists for when the close of nominations takes place. We are concerned that, again, it is lessening the importance of election day. Every day by which prepoll is longer means that the importance of election day itself becomes lesser. Although we can see the need for having a prepoll, and indeed we are very supportive and have always been supportive of it, we do think that restrictions on it need to be put in place. We think that the amendment that would allow up to 19 days is sending the wrong message, and we feel it should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

I go back to the question of the opening of the box containing the prepoll ballots. In the review that was done by a former Electoral Commissioner, he made it quite clear that there was not sufficient information given to electoral staff. The fact that it was picked up in only two divisions I think was really good luck rather than good management. To my way of thinking, it is true to say that that same error could have occurred all over the country, and we just did not know about it because there was no scrutineer or other official there who picked it up at the time. The provision that is going to be put into the act will, I hope, state that you have to be careful to comply with the law as it stands and that there is an obligation on the AEC to make sure that all of its people who are in charge of the various stages of elections are properly informed and have all the information. Otherwise, it could happen again.

Another curious thing in the act says that if a box is prematurely opened by an official then their penalty for so doing is less than that for an ordinary punter who also prematurely opens a ballot box. We have recommended that that be the same penalty for both. It is a fairly serious penalty. It can be six months in jail.

There are bits of the Electoral Act where there are serious messages sent out that getting anything wrong with the handling of an election incurs a serious penalty. Yet, at so many turns, we now seem to be loosening the requirements, which makes it easier for what we might say are inappropriate things to happen in the election process, all in the name of it being allegedly simpler to administer.

The opposition feels very strongly about all the amendments that are being brought in by the government, whether it is initially automatic enrolment, automatic so-called updates or changes of address, or letting criminals vote. There are many things that are being done to alter what we consider to be the integrity of the process, which, should we be elected, we will certainly be addressing. I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage of the debate. I presume that, should the government accept some of the recommendations made by the report, it may be introducing some of its own amendments. Presumably it too will circulate its proposed amendments when we move to the consideration in detail stage.

There has been a lot of strong language used in some of our hearings. Issues have been fiercely pursued, and I am certainly one of those who have fiercely pursued many of the issues. Because we have now had several inquiries into pieces of legislation, as well as the initial report on the 2010 election, I think there is now a greater awareness by many people, who raise the question of electoral matters with me. This simply would not have happened before we embarked on this process of having a greater scrutiny over the process of proposed changes to the Electoral Act.

In conclusion, I would like to say that, when we make changes to the act, there is a huge obligation on the Australian Electoral Commission to make sure that their operatives—the people who are carrying out duties pursuant to the act—are well-informed and that they are carrying out the changes that are made by the parliament in a way which the parliament intended. Perhaps I will just mention one place where that clearly did not occur, which was after the government of the day, the Howard government, had put in place provisions for having oversight—I will use to the word 'audit' in its looser sense—of associated entities and how not one trade union was in the sights of or audited in that way by the Australian Electoral Commission. When we asked the question about why, the answer was given that: 'We were not given any extra resources and we thought Fair Work Australia could carry out some of that duty.' That is not so; if it is in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, it is the Australian Electoral Commission's responsibility.

This is a very serious business. It is a very serious act. It has very strong provisions in it, even though some of them have now been lessened over time—presumably to make it easier for it to be administered. I will just repeat that the opposition, should it be in government, will take a totally different attitude to maintaining the integrity of the roll and to ensuring that citizens who have obligations in fact meet those obligations.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the bill before the House. It is a bill which arose out of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2010 federal election. A number of recommendations were made. In particular, this bill implements the government's response to recommendations three, nine, 10, 11, 15, 29 and 30 of the report. I note that recommendations 15 and 29 were unanimous recommendations of the committee. I did table earlier today a copy of the advisory report on this bill to the House. I think it is important to acknowledge—as I did in tabling that report—the role played by the member for Mackellar in the public hearings, because she quite actively pursued a particular angle which changed the views of the committee. I think the views of the committee swung around unanimously to those of the member for Mackellar.

Indeed, the committee's report has made two recommendations to the government to make changes to the bill. I will read them: On page 30, it says:

…a vote savings measure to the procedures to be followed if ballot boxes are opened prematurely. This vote savings measure should incorporate the elements proposed by the AEC to this inquiry and provide that ballot papers that have not been tampered with in any way must be reinstated to the count but otherwise excluded. This savings measure should apply at any stage of the scrutiny to a ballot box that has been unlawfully handled by any person…

Also, as the member for Mackellar pointed out, we recommended an amendment:

…explicitly stipulating that any electoral official who deliberately and unlawfully interferes with a ballot box or ballot papers be subject to the same penalty as any other person who commits this offence.

The current bill contains the earlier recommendations of the committee, which were based on submissions. But I understand that there will be some government amendments, which have been given to me as chair of the committee and, as I understand it, have been given to the shadow minister—the member for Mackellar. They will pick up the committee's unanimous recommendations in the advisory report. The important thing is that, until the member for Mackellar pursued it, the votes would have been not included in the count. I have great confidence in the Electoral Commission—I always have had. That is not to say I have a blind confidence in them. I think the robust interaction over the years between members of the committee and the commissioner has proved very worthwhile.

One of the things that the member for Mackellar pointed out in her second reading speech was that I supported her, and the committee supported her, on tabling the government's legal advice in relation to this area of votes that were excluded as a result of possible tampering or whatever. The Electoral Commission did produce the advice. That is appendix D of the report that we tabled. It is important to read parts of that advice and to see that what the Electoral Commission did was faithfully follow the legal advice that it was provided. Of that, there can be no doubt. This was advice to them of 30 August 2010. This was advice from Bridget Gilmour-Walsh, senior general counsel. But at paragraph 15, it also says:

Mr Peter Lahy, Deputy General Counsel, has read and agrees with this advice.

The summary of the advice is also worth quoting, which is on page 70 of our report:

In the present circumstances, we consider that the better course of action is not to include the ballot papers in the count and to quarantine those papers (although for the reasons we discuss below, it is possible that a court might take a different view)…

…If the discarded votes could affect the outcome of the election, we think it would be appropriate for the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to file a petition disputing the election in the court of disputed returns as permitted by s 357. We cannot see any other way of correcting the errors and consider that there is real doubt as to whether s 285 is available in the present circumstances.

All counsel from the Australian Government Solicitor and the commission can consider is the act as it currently stands. The report says later on—and this is independent of the Electoral Commission and it actually verifies this independently to us as members of parliament—that the commission was faithfully following the legal advice that is was given. And they do seek to distinguish the matter of Mitchell v Bailey, which was in relation to formal ballot papers and challenges to the formality of ballot papers.

What happened at the last election, in two divisions, was the premature opening of postal votes. The committee is at one with the member for Mackellar that, unless tampering can be shown, those votes should go in. There is a slight difference between the member for Mackellar, me and others in relation to whether these votes should actually be counted. The only votes that we say should be counted are those that are included in the count. The others should be parcelled up, separate and identified, but they should not be included in the count unless the Court of Disputed Returns or the Australian Electoral Office rules otherwise. And, even if the Australian Electoral Office rules they are inadmissible, those votes are protected and the secrecy of those votes is paramount. The argument, and general electoral practice, is that, if you are not disputing the informality but you have got ballot papers inside postal vote applications and things like that, their secrecy is preserved unless they are ordered in.

I think it is worth putting into the debate that the proposed section that will deal with this is that the AEO must decide that a ballot paper is to be included in the scrutiny under part 18 unless the AEO is satisfied that the ballot paper has been fraudulently altered or otherwise interfered with so as not to reflect the voter's intention. I think that adequately picks up the concern of the member for Mackellar and the concerns of the whole of the committee. What it would mean is that, if there is inadvertent error, the votes go in unless you can show that they have been tampered with or altered. I think that is a vast improvement. What it shows is that, despite the fact that we do not agree on other aspects, when it comes to enfranchisement and a whole range of other things, the committee have managed to reach agreement on other aspects of this legislation and in our report and in previous reports.

Some of the differences we have are philosophical differences. For the life of me, I was gobsmacked when the member for Mackellar said we should have prepoll polling for only 12 days, not 19 days. Prepoll voting is overtaking postal voting as a preferred method of voting for those people who are not around on election day. It is like expanding the vote of the day to a longer period to allow more people to utilise it. Seven fewer days could result in a lot fewer people having the vote. As I said, it is like an election day exercise except that it is not on election day. I cannot understand this obsession of the member for Mackellar and some others with having that much less prepoll voting.

The recommendations that we made and that the government has endorsed off the back of some submissions from the commission to do with not having prepoll voting before four days and one less day on postal voting are to allow a better process for the election situation. In other words, instead of having handwritten ballot papers because someone rolls up a day or two after nominations close, the Electoral Office will be able to circulate the ballot papers for all of the electorates, for all the subdivisions and particular places, over the weekend, amongst other things. There will not be an argument towards the end of the situation—and I can tell you that a lot of postal vote applications come in after the event and they are lost in the process. By tightening those timetables a better processing situation occurs and there is more urgency from the political parties, the Electoral Office and a whole range of other things.

The other thing I really want to counter—and again I am really gobsmacked—is the obsession with not allowing information to be passed from the tax office to the Australian Electoral Office. I refer members to page 38 of the report, which details in its conclusions what this is all about. It is about maintaining the integrity of rolls—checking information and comparing information. When you listen to the member for Mackellar and those opposite who rail against this position, you would think that the ATO does not share any of its information with anyone, that it is sacrosanct and 'don't go there'. Let me read from the report:

2.73 The committee maintains the view it expressed in its 2010 federal election report that the ATO should be permitted to provide relevant data to the AEC for the purposes of facilitating enrolment. This is a logical extension of existing continuous roll update processes and direct enrolment using third party information which the committee has supported in previous bill inquiries. In addition, these proposed amendments have been discussed and agreed with the ATO and the Treasury.

2.74 The Electoral Commissioner outlined to the committee that a number of government agencies have access to data from the ATO and provided examples. The list of government entities that can receive protected information from taxation officers for specific purposes (defined in Section 355 of the Taxation Administration Act) includes, but is not limited to:

2.75 The addition of the AEC to this list for the specific purpose of maintaining the veracity of the electoral roll is appropriate and will not undermine roll integrity.

That is something I assert very, very strongly: we want integrity in the electoral roll and we have integrity in the electoral roll. And when you turn around and talk about multiple votes, I would say that I have been on this parliamentary committee on and off for the 23 years I have been in the parliament, so I have heard a lot of allegations. I have heard about multiple votes. Each time we looked at multiple votes—indeed, the last two times—we heard that about 80 per cent of them were elderly people, a lot of them in nursing homes, who had voted when the mobile polling booth had come. Their children and other relatives had gotten them postal vote applications, thinking that they had not voted. That is going to continue under whatever system you have while you have mobile polling voting occurring in aged-care institutions, and postal voting situations. So it is not directly related to the concerns that the member for Mackellar has. There have been people in the past who have been prosecuted, and they should be prosecuted if there is an attempt to manipulate. It has been a long time since—

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

No-one has been prosecuted; not one.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it has been a long time since. And if you have sufficient evidence and you can get the conviction, then do it. The problem has been that, in effect, the Electoral Commission has to work off the act, which we the politicians design. So you can look at these things, in a number of other instances, in a bipartisan way, in a way in which we might create creative instances. What I like about the advisory report that we tabled earlier this afternoon is that we picked up the suggestion of the member for Mackellar, as well as another suggestion. We did not just sit back and say, 'Rubber stamp this bill' or 'No changes' or whatever. So, I commend her in relation to that.

Regarding the other matters we are talking about, there is an ideological divide. But, as for this obsession that the ATO should not provide any information, I just do not agree with her on that. And, as I just demonstrated, they provided in a number of other instances that the Australian Electoral Commission is going to be better served if they can access those records. I commend the bill to the House. I think it is a balanced bill. It will improve integrity on the roll.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Mackellar and indeed the member for Banks on this most important piece of legislation, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2012, because voting is at the very heart of our democracy. There can be no greater privilege in this great country of ours than to actually cast a vote in a free and democratic election process. I would urge all young people out there to make sure, once they turn 18, that they enrol so that they are able to take part in this very function which, as I said, is at the very heart of our democracy.

It is interesting to hear the member who spoke previously actually praising the member for Mackellar on the initiatives she has put forward and the changes Labor has indeed made, just this afternoon, to this particular piece of legislation, because there are elements of it that are not correct; there are elements of it that need tweaking. While there might not be many speakers on this particular piece of legislation, it is, as I said, at the very heart of our democracy, and it is a most important piece of legislation.

I note that the Electoral Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill is not the government's first attempt at changing the rules to suit itself at future elections. We know that on 30 January this year the Prime Minister called a 14 September election—and, if I might say, that day cannot come soon enough. We know changes this government is trying to make to electoral administration must always be viewed with some degree of scepticism, I daresay. This is something that the Special Minister of State has tried to implement on multiple occasions, trying to make Labor's prospects of re-election that much better, that much brighter. This attempt follows a report from the Join Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that this bill seeks to implement recommendations 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 29 and 30 made by that particular committee.

It is important that we work towards reforming some elements on electoral administration in this country, and there are tenets of this bill that address that very need for clarity. It is a shame, however, that this bill also includes the adoption of recommendations that are unnecessary and that in some cases jeopardise the integrity of the Australian electoral roll—a roll that cannot be in any way, shape or form jeopardised, because, as I say, this is just too important to get wrong. It is too important to have voters not be able to vote in a particular way, or voters who do cast their vote not to have those votes counted.

At the outset it is important to note that the Liberals and the Nationals have provided a dissenting report on the recommendations of the standing committee. As such, the coalition is opposed to recommendations 3, 10 and 11, which relate to the Australian Taxation Office and the arrangements for the extension of dates for pre-poll at federal elections.

Firstly, I would like to outline what the government wants to achieve through the introduction of this bill. The explanatory memorandum which accompanies the bill explains the bill's intention to: set the procedures which must be followed when a ballot box is prematurely opened; remove the requirement for an applicant for a pre-poll vote to complete and sign a certificate, as they are currently required to do under the Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum Act; change requirements that pre-polling cannot commence any earlier than four days after the date set for the declaration of nomination for election or by-election; bring forward the deadline for applications for a postal vote to the Wednesday before the date set for the election rather than the current convention of the Thursday before election day; grant further fixed periods of time to the augmented Electoral Commission to complete its inquiries; and change the Taxation Administration Act to allow the Commissioner of Taxation and other taxation officers to provide forms of taxpayer information to the Australian Electoral Commission for the purpose of administering the Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum Act.

There are elements of these recommendations which the coalition agrees with and is therefore keen to see enacted, and I will highlight those in greater detail in a moment. As I have stated previously, it is important we achieve electoral reform in some of the key areas this bill sets out, and the coalition indeed supports some of the committee's recommendations. The Liberals and Nationals agree with several recommendations—namely, those relating to the committee's recommendations 9, 15, 29 and 30.

Firstly, recommendation 9 pertains to the amendments to the convention regarding cases where a ballot box has been opened prematurely. I note that the government has indicated changes to its position on this, which are in line with what the coalition was arguing for in its dissenting report to the committee. I commend the member for Mackellar for her work in that regard.

Secondly, we agree with the proposed amendment, in recommendation 15, to the deadline for the receipt of postal vote applications to 6pm on the Wednesday, three days before the date set for the election. Having an additional 24 hours to process postal vote applications will further enable people who are unable to attend a polling station on the date of the election to have their application for a ballot processed in time for the date of polling. This is something the coalition supports.

Further, the coalition agrees with recommendation 29, which suggests amendment to section 72 of the act and any related sections pertaining to cases where an augmented Electoral Commission has formed an opinion in which it has proposed a redistribution which is significantly different to the Redistribution Committee proposal. We agree with the recommendation that a further fixed period should be provided, during which the actions required by subsection 72(13) of the act are to be undertaken.

The coalition is also in support of recommendation 30, which would seek to amend the act so that, in cases where a further fixed period is provided during which the actions required by subsection 72(13) of the act are to be undertaken, the number of days specified in subsection 72(13) of the act also be increased by the same number provided for in the further fixed period.

While electoral reform is important—indeed, vital—it is critical we use this opportunity to get it right. Recommendations 9, 15, 29 and 30 will seek to do that. In saying this, however, the coalition has significant reservations about three of the standing committee's recommendations, which we therefore cannot and do not support.

Firstly, the government is seeking, in recommendation 3, to remove the current restriction of the Australian Taxation Office to provide information to the Australian Electoral Commission for the purpose of automatic enrolment. Under the current Taxation Administration Act 1953 it is an offence for the Australian Taxation Office to disclose protected information, and the coalition firmly believes this convention should stand. The coalition does not believe granting the Australian Taxation Office such an ability is in the interests of maintaining people's right to privacy. Convention ought to stand on the manner in which people enrol to vote in Australia. Such a move to grant the Australian Taxation Office this ability does not have our support.

Further, recommendation 10 of the committee is that the requirement, at section 200DH of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, for an applicant for a pre-poll vote to sign a certificate be repealed. The coalition, in its dissenting report to this committee, stipulated that the move to repeal the requirement for a pre-poll applicant to sign a certificate:

… will increase the likelihood of voter fraud and threaten the integrity of the Electoral roll.

We cannot and must not let that happen. It is not necessarily an onerous or difficult task for an applicant at pre-poll to provide a signature when casting their vote at a federal election. Surely that is not too much to ask. The coalition members of this committee have said that not only is there no fathomable reason for the requirement of a signature to be repealed but also that we have significant concerns that such a move could lead to an increase in fraudulent voting.

Thirdly, the coalition does not support recommendation 11—that an application for a pre-poll vote cannot be made prior to the Monday 19 days before the current date set for the election. This proposal is an increase on the current 12-day convention, which the coalition believes is sufficient. The date for an election for the federal parliament is set for a reason, and that is when the Liberal and National parties think that the majority of votes ought to be cast. We need to have a polling day, not a polling period. Currently it is 12 days. The other side wants 19. We feel 12 is satisfactory. The current convention of pre-poll voting opening 12 days prior to the election gives voters who cannot attend a polling station on the date of the election a sufficient window of opportunity to cast their vote. A move to increase this by a week may well take the focus off polling day, and we believe it is unnecessary. The coalition therefore stand opposed to this recommendation.

I reiterate the importance of achieving electoral reform in some key areas, which this bill has the potential to achieve. While such reform is important, there are recommendations put to the House through this bill which are unnecessary, such as the recommendation to give the Australian Taxation Office the ability to give private details of people in order to enrol them automatically.

This bill is not alone in being an example of the Labor Party trying its best to improve its standing at the next election by changing electoral processes. We know Labor could amend its policy on introducing the carbon tax we were promised would never happen under the government this Prime Minister leads. Instead, Labor seems hell-bent on introducing electoral reform to make its re-election prospects better. The member for Mackellar has informed the House before of attempts by the Labor Party and its former coalition partners, the Greens, to ensure their survival at the next election. I recall the debate on maintaining addresses and the speech the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop gave on Tuesday, 20 March last year about the Labor Party getting so desperate it tried manipulating election laws to enable prisoners to vote. The member for Mackellar highlighted in that speech the fact that the former Liberal-National coalition removed the right of prisoners to vote. The good old Labor Party, in the depths of its desperation for votes at the next election, amended that to enable people who are sentenced to prison for less than two years to vote. I share the member for Mackellar's concerns about the number of people who have been convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison for less than two years having the ability to vote. While there are aspects of this bill which are worthy of support, it is essential that we take the government's attempts to reform electoral procedures with a grain of salt, with scepticism.

This bill, which seeks to implement recommendations 9, 10, 11, 15, 29 and 30 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report into the conduct of the 2010 federal election and related matters, has some good ideas for electoral reform. Unfortunately, they are cloaked in the move to implement some unnecessary changes which jeopardise the integrity of the electoral roll. It is because of this that the coalition only supports recommendations 9, 15, 29 and 30 of the joint committee's report. I thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, for the privilege of speaking on this very important matter.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not take too much of the House's time today because, as has been clear from earlier speakers, there is a lot that can be said but it tends to be a bit repetitive. The fact is that what we are dealing with here are basically predominantly relatively minor reforms on what is, as earlier members have said, an excellent electoral system. It is an electoral system which has served us well for many years now. It is an electoral system which is international renowned. It is an electoral system that is independent. And it is an electoral system which is organic—it has evolved when change has been required. It has taken into consideration the nature of the changing patterns of the way society organises itself, the way technology has developed and the way people wish to exercise their democratic rights on an ongoing basis. For those reasons it is not unusual for us to be here in this House once again debating amendment of the acts that are involved. But in doing so we are building on a system which is, frankly, the envy of the world.

Having said that, because it relates to the very issue of how we achieve our arrival here and maintain our careers here, it is an area which is often subject to partisan comment—partisan comment from the coalition and, at times, from the Labor Party. I have certainly been part of that over the years. As a former shadow minister, in relation to the electoral area, I have had some impassioned debates about elements of our system, particularly with the member for Mackellar amongst others—

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

And some on your own side!

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And some on my own side, indeed, and it has always been in good spirit. But the good thing about it is that we are always arguing about tinkering, in a situation where overwhelmingly it is a good system.

And so to the tinkering that we are dealing with today. As was outlined by the previous speaker, there are a number of recommendations which came from a report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I am a member, as to the conduct of the 2010 federal election. The amendments are, in my view, best categorised as being about making it easier and better for people to be able to exercise their democratic rights—easier to exercise their democratic rights with respect to enrolment, and easier to exercise their democratic rights in terms of their vote.

We do sometimes find ourselves in a debate in this area around that question of ensuring we have a vibrant electoral system that gives people the opportunity to participate, versus the question of the what-ifs—what might happen in certain circumstances if people should endeavour to commit electoral fraud. I stand very firmly on the side of the debate that if there is a choice between giving someone the right to exercise their vote and not, then they should be given that right. I stand very firmly on the view that our system should be encouraging rather than discouraging participation.

If we look to the last election, one of the things that was quite disturbing was that we had one of the highest informal voting figures since Federation—in fact, it was the second highest, with the previous occasion being, I think, in 1984 when some changes had been made to the voting system for the Senate. That led to a situation where one could vote above the line—which meant that you only had to put a one in a box above a line for senatorial voting—and unfortunately part of the advertising campaign confused people around the question of what was a legitimate vote in the lower house. So, other than that occasion, the informal vote at the last election was the highest.

Also, in terms of the question of electoral turnout: the turnout at this last election was in fact the lowest turnout since the first election where we had compulsory voting, back in the 1920s. So during the time when we have had compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting, this was the lowest percentage.

This highlights some key points around the need to ensure that our rolls are capable of being updated easily and to ensure that, in the process of doing that, you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and you still have a system of integrity. One of the key things around the changes that are being proposed, of which elements are in this bill, is ensuring that you are able to cross-reference data and ensure that there are checks and balances. I might add that, although this relates particularly to the Australian Taxation Office, the systems that have been developed with respect to several state jurisdictions actually involve a similar approach around the question of cross-matching of data in order to ensure that people are given the maximum opportunity to ensure they are on the electoral roll. I think that is an important principle.

So, to those who would argue that automatic enrolment opens a door to fraud, I would say it opens a door to greater levels of participation by people who are fully entitled to do so. It gives them the opportunity to take part in the democratic process. The previous speaker, the member for Riverina, raised some points about the question of this being an evil plot by the Labor Party to ensure that, through changes to the electoral roll, we would increase our capacity to be elected at the next election. There has been comment on this publicly. Frankly, what is really clear is that, when it comes to the question about any impact some of these changes might have on any electoral result, it is absolutely minimal, but it does take into account that key point around the issue of ensuring that all Australians have the right to participate in our democratic system.

I will speak briefly about a couple of other points that were made about some of the amendments that are here. As I said, I do not think there are a lot of matters here of great significance—and certainly of partisan politics—but I mentioned one. The other couple I will mention go to the issue of the signing of pre-poll certificates by voters, which, again, was mentioned by a previous speaker as having the potential for voter fraud. Frankly, it is about removing unnecessary processes that cause greater administrative difficulties with the whole question of the conduct of these ballots. Frankly, it will not have an impact with respect to fraud. It is part of a wider argument that is often raised around the issue of the potential for multiple voting. Time and time again, the Australian Electoral Commission has produced detailed research showing that, for all of the huff and puff that goes on from some about the potential for this to occur, it just does not. The fact is that our system is one we can all be very proud of.

On the issue of applications for pre-polls and the fact that there would be a longer period to allow pre-polling to occur, and the question of what has been occurring in more recent times, it is a recognition of the fact that more and more Australians are availing themselves of the opportunity to vote in the lead-up to election day rather than on election day. To be honest, I have some concerns about that, in terms of the question of how you conduct a campaign and ensure that you give people the opportunity to have the information before them to make a decision before they cast their vote. The more people who exercise that right prior to polling day the more people might be in a situation where they are not always in possession of all the facts. Having said that, it is a fact of modern Australian society that the mobility of people and the circumstances of their health have led to a situation where more and more people are availing themselves of that opportunity. In those circumstances I really do not see what the problem is.

We have a good system, a system we can all be proud of. We are in a situation where this legislation is part of an ongoing process that all governments engage in with respect to the finetuning of an electoral system that is the envy of the world. We ought to be proud of it. We ought to be proud of being part of the system and what it produces. We should pass these amendments because they are part of making sure that the system keeps pace with the times.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is nothing more fundamental to democracy than elections, and there is nothing more important to proper, honest and fair elections than the integrity of the electoral rolls, the very rock upon which our electoral system stands. Today's bill includes provisions that represent a further attack on the integrity and accuracy of the electoral roll. It is for that reason that I rise to speak today on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2012.

This bill seeks to implement seven recommendations contained in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report following the 2010 federal election: The 2010 federal election: report on the conduct of the election and related matters. The bill was first introduced on 29 November 2012 and was referred by the selection committee to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for further scrutiny, through which the committee released its report on 27 February 2012, with the coalition providing a dissenting report to note its opposition to some components of the bill. Specifically, the coalition opposes recommendations 3, 10 and 11. Recommendation 3 includes further changes as to how information is added to the electoral roll by allowing the Australian Taxation Office to share information with the Australian Electoral Commission.

I have previously spoken in this House about my commitment to the integrity of the electoral roll, a system whereby each individual elector acts on their own initiative to comply with the responsibilities that come with being a resident of Australia. In March last year the government passed in the House the Electoral and Referendum (Maintaining Address) Bill and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Protecting Elector Participation) Bill, which allowed automatic enrolment based on an elector changing their address with the Department of Human Services, state and territory motor registries or Australia Post. This has created the potential that at no stage is the actual elector involved in changing their electoral address. Instead, if they change their address with the previously mentioned bodies the AEC will post a letter to their proposed new address to confirm the change. If they do not respond, the AEC will go about changing their address anyway. This is a serious concern because we know that only 20 per cent of electors respond to letters from the Electoral Commission. Even more alarming is that last year's changes mean that now someone can be added to the electoral roll without their prior knowledge and without their consent. There is no signature required, and not even a required acknowledgment that the elector understands the rights and responsibilities that come with being on the electoral roll. They might simply get a learner's permit from a convenient motor registry and then, without their knowledge and without their consent, a public servant sitting in Canberra comes across their information and puts them on the electoral roll or changes their enrolment details.

One particular argument often used in the defence of making voting compulsory in Australia is that voting should be considered to be not merely a civil right but also one's civic duty. The argument maintains that it is the responsibility of every single person capable of casting a vote at an election to educate themselves about the issues and to vote accordingly. Indeed, it is technically compulsory in this nation for someone to not just attend a voting booth but to specifically mark their preference on their ballot paper, thereby making a deliberate informal vote illegal—although of course there are ways around that obligation. If we were to accept that argument we must also accept that attempts to reduce or remove the responsibility of Australians to engage with the electoral process must not occur. Yet this is exactly what automatic enrolment does. It takes the responsibility away from the elector and places it in the hands of a public servant.

Automatic enrolment and the further dilution of the integrity of the electoral roll will be a huge problem, potentially, for thousands of students who reside at the 11 colleges at the University of Queensland. Just last Friday my office dropped off forms so that more than 2,000 students in St Lucia can ask to check their enrolment status. Many of those students may reside at the college while their electoral address may be thousands of kilometres away. With automatic enrolment their address may be changed, as I have said, without their consent and without their knowledge, so they may show up on election day having no idea that their electoral address has changed, which could impair their ability to cast a formal vote at their correct address in the correct electorate.

This bill adds further ambiguity to the electoral roll because it includes legislative changes to the Taxation Administration Act, which governs the protection of personal data collected by the ATO. This means that the ATO will be allowed to provide personal information and data to the AEC for the purposes of automatic enrolment. The coalition has warned this government previously about what damage could occur if the AEC uses information from the ATO to update the electoral roll, because there are very serious questions about the accuracy of the data it keeps.

We know that there was a very extensive and thorough review in the Australian National Audit Office report on the management of tax files numbers considered by a House Standing Committee on Economics, Financial and Public Administration in 1999. From that report the House discovered that there were 3.2 million more tax file numbers than people in Australia when compared with the most recent census. There are 185,000 potential duplicate tax records for individuals and, very alarmingly, 62 per cent of deceased clients were not recorded as deceased in a sample match. There is no reason to suggest that in 2013 the records of the ATO are any more accurate.

The government majority report maintains that the AEC should be able to use a so-called 'trusted' data source and that the AEC by itself can declare whether or not it thinks a data source is trustworthy. However, when there are so many gaps and mistakes, which I have just mentioned, we must question the very integrity of that data and whether the ATO can be considered to be a trusted data source. As the coalition's dissenting report noted:

The inclusion of such data, if erroneous, would be extremely damaging to public faith in our electoral process.

In simple terms, where there are such examples of inconsistency in Commonwealth data, there cannot be sufficient faith in this data being used to automatically add people to the electoral roll.

Furthermore, there are very important privacy concerns that this change introduces. Previously, the ATO has always claimed that it maintains the highest level of confidentiality when it comes to a taxpayer's personal information. With today's proposed changes, the ATO will be able to pass on confidential information to the AEC without the individual taxpayer's knowledge or consent. This is a dangerous path that the Labor government is following. Bit by bit, the Labor Party is increasing government scope in our lives—and not only in the electoral process. With so many other regulations and policies, it proposes to increase taxes on families to regulate what we can or cannot say and to regulate what we can and cannot see in the media. With these changes to the Electoral Act, the Labor government is sending the message that your personal, private information is not your property because, once it ends up in the hands of a government bureaucrat, they can do whatever they want with your information.

Therefore, the coalition remains opposed to automatic enrolment and the provision within this bill which provides for the Australian Taxation Office to release a taxpayer's personal data for the purpose of automatic enrolment. What the AEC should be concentrating on is continually checking the accuracy of the roll and advertising to ensure that people are aware of their obligations to properly enrol initially and to then advise the AEC of a change of address, should it occur.

This bill also enacts recommendation 10, reducing the responsibilities of an elector should they complete a pre-poll ordinary vote. Currently, if someone wishes to complete a pre-poll vote, they must complete and sign a certificate declaring their identity. This bill removes that requirement. It is not an onerous task for an elector to provide a simple signature so that the AEC can ensure that fraudulent and multiple voting does not occur in elections. Given the inherent difficulty for the AEC to successfully prosecute a case where they believe someone has engaged in fraudulent or multiple voting, which has been previously noted by the committee, we must not introduce changes which make that activity easier or more likely to occur. We do not want the onerous requirement of someone, for example, having to prove their identity with a drivers licence—I am not suggesting that—but it is not onerous for someone to sign a form so that the AEC can protect against voter fraud. Therefore, I oppose removing the requirement for electors to sign a certificate when they cast a pre-poll vote.

The coalition further opposes the provision in this bill which adopts recommendation 11 of the electoral matters committee report to provide that pre-poll voting cannot commence earlier than four days after the date fixed for the declaration of nominations for an election. This would allow for pre-poll voting to occur on the Monday 19 days prior to the general election date, a change from the current practice of opening pre-poll voting on the Monday 12 days prior to the election date. There are significant concerns about this change being implemented as it would take the focus away from the polling day itself. Ultimately, while pre-poll voting is an important way through which those with health issues or those who travel can be engaged with democracy and vote at an election, we must also accept that the appropriate day for the overwhelming majority of votes to be cast is the declared general election day.

Finally, the coalition does support those parts of this bill which relate to four recommendations of the original Electoral Matters Committee report—firstly, recommendation 9: to amend the act where appropriate 'to specifically provide that a ballot box containing votes cast by electors may not be opened before the close of polling other than in accordance with the relevant provisions of the act'; secondly, recommendation 15: to amend the act to provide 'that the deadline for the receipt of postal vote applications be 6 pm on the Wednesday, three days before polling day'; thirdly, recommendation 29: to amend the act to provide 'that, where an augmented Electoral Commission has formed an opinion that its proposed redistribution is significantly different to the Redistribution Committee proposal, a further fixed period be provided during which the actions required by subsection 72(13) of the act are to be undertaken'; and, fourthly, recommendation 30: to provide that 'the number of days specified in subsection 72(2) of the act also be increased by the same number of days provided for in the further fixed period' in the case that an individual or an organisation makes a further objection. The coalition supports these necessary changes.

I would like to again thank members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their commitment to the electoral and referendum acts, and particularly thank the member for Mackellar for her decades-long commitment to the integrity of the electoral roll.

At the end of the day, it is inconceivable that the government cannot be alert to the real issues raised by these amendments. Our concerns are born of a genuine belief that something so fundamental as the integrity of our electoral system must be protected by legislation which reflects that importance—legislation that secures that integrity by spelling out in the clearest terms how it is to be protected, and legislation that acknowledges that a flawed protection of our electoral rolls must inevitably lead to the wrong candidates being elected. It is as stark as that. Any attempt to reduce the integrity of our electoral roll—a cornerstone of our democracy—must be opposed, and that is why I oppose this bill in its current form.

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

I want to congratulate the Special Minister of State for bringing the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2012 forward. Like Work Choices, it corrects one of the great conservative overreaches made when, in their hubris, the previous government had control of the Senate. This bill gives effect to recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which I had the honour to serve from 2001 to 2010, part of the time as deputy chair, when we were in opposition. As a result of that committee experience, I am very familiar with the issues and the government's wider project of electoral reform.

Australia has one of the best electoral systems at the federal level in the world. The combination of single-member seats in the House of Representatives, proportional representation in the Senate, preferential voting in all elections and compulsory voting is uniquely Australian. It gives stable majority government most of the time in the Lower House, and there are occasional hung parliaments, as we have at this time. It gives minor parties a voice in the Senate without allowing them to destabilise governments and it ensures that every Australian citizen participates in our democratic process so that every citizen shares responsibility for the outcome of elections. But our system is not perfect. It requires regular updating to ensure that we maximise electoral participation.

I believe that in the period of the previous conservative government a deliberate tactic was entered into where slowly, salami style, various categories of Australians were excluded from the roll. It is not good enough that we have as a result of that process an estimated 15.7 million Australians eligible to be enrolled but only 14.2 million actually enrolled. If we are to make voting compulsory—and I strongly believe that we should; that is our system and we are all, on a non-partisan basis, committed to it—we need to ensure that, logically and rationally, every Australian has the ability to vote by being enrolled. At the moment we are clearly not doing enough to ensure this.

I might point out that this is in part a problem we have created for ourselves. As I said, I think part of it was a deliberate tactic by the previous conservative government. Over decades people were taken off the electoral roll and very happily not put back on. In the previous system with snail mail only 20 per cent of people responded to changes of address inquiries by the AEC and gradually we have had this problem of 1.5 million Australians being off the electoral roll.

In 1987 the Hawke government proposed the Australia Card as a solution to identity problems and actually won a double dissolution election on this issue but, because of obstruction in the Senate, the proposal was never put into effect. We are now paying a price for that failure with over one million eligible Australian citizens not on the electoral roll.

The government has recently legislated to move to automatic enrolment. Recent amendments to the Electoral Act allow the AEC to enrol an unenrolled person without a claim being lodged by that person and to update or transfer a person's enrolment without an application from that person provided that the AEC is certain, on the basis of available information, of that person's current address. This will enable the AEC to place most of those people who are currently unenrolled on the rolls.

The member for Ryan painted this as some kind of Labor conspiracy, whereas in fact the government of New South Wales does this. Are they part of some Labor conspiracy? Has Barry O'Farrell's mind been colonised by Minister Gray? Of course not. This is not a conspiracy. This is a reaction to modernity when people travel and are not available on the day and when people do not respond to snail mail. Very few people make the deliberate decision not to enrol to vote. Most of those who are not enrolled have failed to enrol out of ignorance or forgetfulness, as we can see from the rush of last-minute enrolments that we always get when an election is announced.

The previous speaker, the member for Ryan, said that using the tax office was some kind of socialist conspiracy to steal people's rights. Of course, all previous conservative governments since the early 1980s have used the Transport Accident Commission and many other databases in order to do the continuous roll updates that form the basis of them writing letters to people to seek their enrolment.

This legislation refines the process of enrolment. The bill facilitates automatic enrolment of eligible people by allowing the Taxation Commissioner to disclose information to the AEC for roll update and maintenance purposes. Only information obtained by the Taxation Commissioner on or after the day this bill is assented to can be disclosed to the AEC. What that means in short is that the AEC will be able to determine a person's current address by, amongst other things, accessing information held by the ATO. Of course, no other taxation information can or will be disclosed.

The way the highly competent Electoral Commission organises this is to correlate various databases, so the ATO information will not be the only information that it correlates. Since most people pay their taxes—even those who have forgotten to enrol to vote—this will enable the AEC to gradually put more people on the rolls over the years.

Another section of this bill deals with procedures for people casting their vote at a pre-polling place—that is, at a place which is open before polling day. This is an increasingly urgent question. As I said, it is a question of modernity, not of conspiracy. Due to changes in people's work and leisure habits, it is no longer convenient for every Australian to vote on the Saturday in the traditional way. An increasing proportion of voters cast postal votes or a pre-poll vote.

In my electorate of Melbourne Ports at the 2010 election 5.5 per cent of people cast a pre-poll vote while 11 per cent did a postal vote. It is very interesting that this inner-city electorate cast that many postal votes, as the number was competitive with some of the more remote electorates in Australia that had a very high number of postal votes but obviously for very different reasons. It is international context rather than conspiracy. Twenty-five per cent of people at the recent United States election for the presidency of the United States voted before election day. This is the future. This is how Australia, too, has to move. That is why these moves on prepolling are very au fait with the way modern society is moving.

In my electorate, as I said, a total of 16.7 per cent of people, the highest in Australia, either cast a prepoll or postal vote. The reason for that is not like, say, in the electorate of Maranoa where geographic remoteness causes people to cast a postal vote. It is that we have a very large percentage of Jewish Australians who do not vote on a Saturday and seek to vote by prepoll or by postal vote. They do not do this to pull some kind of trick; it is because of their cultural or religious observance. Yet the Electoral Act as it stands treats prepoll voters with unjustified suspicion by requiring them to fill out and sign a form stating that they are eligible to vote before they can be given a ballot paper. It seems to me to be insulting to these voters that the Electoral Act makes it more difficult to cast a vote on the Wednesday before an election than on the Saturday of an election itself.

As I have said many times in debates of this sort, we have not only one of the best but also one of the cleanest election systems in the world. Numerous inquiries by the joint standing committee have shown that there is no evidence whatever of any significant level of electoral fraud or malpractice in Australian federal elections. There is therefore no justification for putting obstacles in the path of Australian citizens who want to cast their vote by prepoll. This bill does away with the requirement for prepoll voters to sign a declaration and I know many people in my electorate will welcome that.

In the years between 1990 and 2012 there were six electoral events, including a referendum, at which 72 million Australians voted. The Electoral Commission at the end of the day referred to the police 72 cases of electoral fraud in those six electoral events—one case per million people. The member for Mackellar goes on and on about the integrity of the electoral roll, but we have integrity in the electoral roll. What we have is the democratic problem of 1.5 million Australians not being on the roll because they have been deliberately excluded by a Tory plan that took a number of years to get into practice.

It is very unfortunate that the opposition is opposing aspects of this bill. It is unfortunate but not surprising, because the whole trend of Liberal and National Party policy in this area has been to restrict rather than enhance the right and ability of Australians to enrol and to vote. The Howard government in its last term passed amendments to the Electoral Act that made it significantly harder for people who did not have drivers licences or passports to enrol and cast a prepoll or postal vote. There was a scandalous growth in the number of people between the 2004 and 2007 elections who applied for provisional votes on the day and were excluded because of the restrictive requirements that were put in by the Howard government. I suspect it was because many of those people lived in apartments, were more mobile and were younger and the Howard government suspected that they might vote against them. All Australians have the right to vote and these provisions between 2004 and 2007 saw the number of people having their provisional vote submitted go down from 80 per cent in 2004 to, in 2007, in many cases less than 50 per cent.

One must ask why the opposition, when they were in government, moved to make it harder for Australians to enrol and to vote, and why now, in opposition, they are resisting our moves to make it easier to enrol and to vote. The answer is quite simply that they believe it is in their political interests to do so. They calculate that the voters they disenfranchised through their restrictive measures, and whose re-enfranchisement they are now opposing, are more likely to be Labor voters than conservative voters. The member on our side who previously spoke believes that it is neutral, but I think there is probably some truth to the idea that younger and more transient voters may vote for us.

In going down this anti-democratic path, however, the opposition is once again following their mentors, the right wing of the US Republican Party. All through last year we saw attempts by Republican governors to make it harder for people in their states to register to vote and to cast their votes. They did this in a blatant attempt to rig the electoral system against the President of the United States, President Obama, and in favour of Governor Romney. Fortunately, most of their efforts were overturned in the courts. Last November, we saw where all of these Republican attempts to deny people the right to vote finished up. In fact, it was a cause celebre in the United States that people were faced with these electoral restrictions and more people turned out—and more people turned out early, I would suggest—as a result of these attempts to change the electoral system. I suggest the same thing will happen to the opposition in this country unless they change their tactics.

The issue addressed by this bill is the real issue of democratic deficit in Australia—that is, is the 1.5 million Australians disenfranchised by the continuous restrictive elements that were put into practice by the previous conservative government between the time of their election in 1996 and 2007. Enrolling people with the proper integrity is the great democratic purpose of this legislation and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2012 is the third bill on which I have spoken regarding reforms to the administration of our electoral system. I have a great passion for expanding our democracy. That passion is shared by a great number of electors in Fraser. At last count, we had 131,000 electors in Fraser. That compares to an average of 94,000 electors per electorate at the last election. Mine is either the largest or the second largest electorate in Australia, and I welcome more people onto the roll in the ACT.

Before this bill, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Protecting Elector Participation) Bill introduced important amendments to enhance voter participation and update the electoral roll. We have introduced this suite of changes because, unlike our conservative counterparts, we understand how crucial inclusion and participation are to our system of democracy. That passion for expanding access to democracy is centuries old. It goes back to the times when William Wentworth, a conservative, campaigned to maintain the property qualification for voting. It goes back to those conservatives who stood against expanding the suffrage to women in Australia. It goes also today, in Queensland, to those members of the Queensland LNP who are campaigning to get rid of compulsory voting. At every turn you see progressives wanting to expand the franchise and conservatives opposing expansion and wanting shrinkage of the franchise.

This is fundamentally part of a fair go. I want people on the electoral roll regardless of how they vote because I believe the very act of participating in our democratic process is an important one. I will often urge young people who are interested in politics to get involved in political parties. It is great if they want to get involved in my political party, but if they want to get involved in another political party that too is a good thing.

This bill introduces administrative procedures to assist the Australian Electoral Commission in producing a more inclusive electoral roll and timely processing of postal vote applications. That will include bringing forward the date to dispatch voting materials for postal votes. It will include allowing the Australian Electoral Commission to receive certain information from the Taxation Office for enrolments and updating enrolments. In themselves these are small steps, but they are part of that bigger story of democracy, civic engagement, inclusion and using the role of government to strengthen our great democracy.

Today is Canberra's birthday. It is appropriate to acknowledge the words of Walter Burley Griffin, who said that he was designing a city for a nation of 'bold democrats'. Bold democrats should want everyone to participate in our electoral process and that means administrative amendments that expand the franchise.

The number of eligible voters who are not on the electoral roll has risen significantly since 2001. Without the administrative changes introduced to enhance electoral procedures and voter participation, on average 10,000 eligible voters per electorate would have been unable to cast their votes later this year and to exercise their right to elect their political representatives.

There are only a dozen or so nations around the world that have compulsory voting. We have compulsory voting because we believe that with rights come responsibilities, that it is the responsibility of everyone to have their say in the democratic process. Indeed, as a Centre for Independent Studies report pointed out a number of years ago, getting rid of compulsory voting would lead to a bias in those who remain. In which way would it bias? It was quite clear from the authors, Derek Chong, Sinclair Davidson and Tim Fry, that getting rid of compulsory voting would advantage the conservative side of politics and it would do so not in a fair manner because those who voted under voluntary voting would be unrepresentative of the Australian population as a whole. As a social laboratory for the world, we have been a world leader in implementing compulsory voting and it is a good and important reform that ensures inclusion. It ensures that those of us in this place are an accurate representation of the political views of the Australian people. Voluntary voting would breach that guarantee.

In opposing these reforms, the opposition is again demonstrating a preference for political gain over the national interest, the democratic interest, of all Australians, over the right to vote and the right to ensure that our parliament is representative of the population as a whole. Why won't it support these amendments? Part of the answer is in a November 2011 radio interview from the opposition leader. He said that only the right kids should stay on at school beyond year 10. He said, 'It's all very well and good keeping kids at school past year 10 but they've got to be the right kids.' It appears here that that is the approach the opposition is taking to electoral reform: 'We want voters but only the right sorts of voters.'

The coalition attempted to block a bill that would make it easier for Australians to vote by lowering the provisional age at which young Australians can register to vote. When that bill came before the House in 2010, the member for Eden-Monaro correctly stated, 'I think that Tony Abbott needs to explain to the Australian people why he does not want to make it easy for them to enrol and vote in the forthcoming election.' We know the answer, as the member for Melbourne Ports has pointed out. Statistically, it is likely that, as you increase the number of younger people on the rolls, they will not be natural supporters of the coalition.

The principle here is the principle of expanding the franchise. We need more civic engagement. And that is in the face of a decline in civic engagement. In my book Disconnected, I charted not only the collapse of Australian political party membership right across the spectrum but also a decline over recent decades in the share of Australians casting a valid vote. What do you have to do to cast a valid vote? You have to do two things. You have to show up to the polling booth and not spoil the ballot paper. Despite an increase in education levels in Australia, we have seen a decrease in the share of electors casting a valid vote, with now a 10th of the citizenry effectively failing to participate in the poll, either by not turning up or by spoiling the ballot paper. In that environment it is absolutely critical that we expand the democratic process, that we ensure that more and more people can be engaged.

It was somewhat surprising recently to see defence of an inclusive democracy and election system coming from an unlikely source in Queensland. In January this year, the Newman government released a discussion paper that raised the prospect of scrapping compulsory voting in state elections. Clive Palmer responded to the proposal with the following tweet:

Qld govt plan to scrap compulsory voting shows it's panicking about loss of support. Compulsory voting a feature of our democracy.

And in a media release he made the perfectly sensible point:

The more people who participate in a democracy the better and it is good for the whole country if citizens accept the responsibility to vote.

If you want to see a preview of what Australia might look like were the Leader of the Opposition to move to this side of the House then you only have to look at the Newman government in Queensland. It is, frankly, a shame that some of the LNP in Queensland do not understand, as it turns out Mr Palmer does, that participation in the democratic process is essential to a fair society.

Minister Gray argued earlier this year that Australia's electoral system should not be changed for the sake of protecting partisan political interests. He correctly identified concern about the increase in informal voting and the need to address this. While I am not sure Minister Gray would regard Clive Palmer as being his natural ally, the point is indeed clear. As the minister has said:

Our system has delivered stable government and a custom and practice which means voters at federal elections are most likely to know how to … make their vote count. Voting systems should not be changed for short-term partisan advantage.

The Australian Electoral Commission received over 800,000 postal vote applications at the 2010 election. It is an increasingly popular way to cast a ballot. This bill will amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to remove the requirement for a prepoll ordinary vote applicant to complete and sign a certificate. The Australian Electoral Commission will be assisted in processing the applications for postal votes by bringing forward by one day the dispatch of postal voting materials. The bill clarifies that prepoll voting can only commence on the fourth day following the declaration of nominations. In addition, a small amendment to the Taxation Administration Act allows certain personal information collected by the Australian Taxation Office to be received by the Electoral Commission. This information, obtained from a credible government source, will enable the commission to update the electoral roll so that it is as inclusive as possible, demonstrating a commitment to ensuring that as many Australians as possible can have their say in our great democracy.

The progressive tradition of supporting democratic participation is a fundamental Labor value. Labor believes that every Australian should have their say in the future of Australia. We are committed to ensuring that everyone who is eligible has a say in the nation's future, because we are the party of democracy and of the franchise. The right role of government is to protect the rights of Australians to put their mark on the ballot paper and make it possible for them to do so. The right role of government is to ensure that we get those estimated 1½ million voters who are off the electoral roll involved in elections. That comes from fundamental values which are not just Labor values; they are Australian values—equity, fairness and participation. People who are voting for the first time should be encouraged to get on the roll. That means all of them—not just what the Leader of the Opposition might call the right voters but all voters.

These administrative changes are part of a larger story, a story central to Australia. They are part of an Australia which has always believed in inclusion, civic engagement and democracy. It is an Australian tradition which does not look at politics through a partisan lens and recognises that we must always welcome greater participation and ensure that those who move are able to stay on the electoral roll, that young Australians are encouraged to join the electoral roll and that new citizens are able to join the electoral roll. It is always a great pleasure and a privilege to speak at citizenship ceremonies, to speak to people who are joining the Australian project for the first time. I often say at those ceremonies that the new citizens are now part of a larger Australian project, a project which stretches back generations. It is not just a project run by politicians; it is the job of all of us to leave Australia a little better than we found it. The way in which new citizens so often look to do that is by getting on the electoral roll and getting involved in elections.

These democracy-enhancing reforms are fundamentally about ensuring that movers, young Australians, new citizens and, frankly, those who are just a little bit forgetful do not get left out of our great democracy. Just because you forget to update your details to the Australian Electoral Commission it does not mean that we should not help ensure that you have your say in our nation's future. Australia's democracy is too important to be left to a small portion of Australians. The job of Australia's democracy falls on all of us, and that is why we must do all we can to expand the franchise. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.