Mr TANNER (1:33 PM) —This legislation put forward by the government amending the Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act is designed to achieve two objectives, neither of which of the Labor Party supports.

It is designed to make it easier for people to make substantial donations to political parties without having to disclose the origin of those donations, and it is designed to make it harder for people to get on to the electoral roll or to stay on the electoral roll. As I said, neither of these objectives is supported by Labor. We will be moving a substantial number of amendments to the legislation in the committee stage, and I will now just go through the issues as we see them in the legislation.

The legislation was first introduced in the Senate in May on the eve of the election and, in spite of the best efforts of the secretary of the Liberal Party, Mr Lynton Crosby, the government could not quite manage to get it on to the program in time to get it through before the election. Now, of course, we have to deal with it in this chamber, and our position is the same essentially as the position that we put forward in the minority report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, which dealt with the issues, some of which are reflected in legislation.

The reason the bill never got through the previous parliament is that a range of the measures proposed have been devised with the intent of providing specific political advantage to the conservatives. In particular, it reflects the long held obsession with the Liberal Party about unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud, measures to disenfranchise large numbers of electors and massive increases in electoral funding and disclosure thresholds to allow large sums of money to go undisclosed.

I will now turn to the detail in the legislation. Items 1 to 9 deal with the provision of elector data to members, senators and political parties. Items 1 and 2 relate to giving federal MPs details of electors' dates of birth and salutations. These measures are supported by the Labor Party. The electoral rolls and habitation indexes are currently provided in print or on tape or disk, in accordance with section 91 of the act, and we think it is useful for this to continue, and for birth dates and salutation details to be provided to enable us to more accurately deal with constituents.

However, there is substantial sensitivity associated with this information, particularly with respect to its attractiveness for commercial marketing companies. Items 3 and 4 increase the penalty for misuse of this material from 10 penalty units to 100 penalty units. We think it is clearly inadequate at $1,000 and we believe it is appropriate to have a more severe penalty with respect to misuse of electoral roll material for commercial purposes.

I turn to items 5 and 7: there currently exists a range of permitted purposes for which this information can be used, and the government is proposing to add a new permitted purpose—that of research regarding electoral matters. These measures will be supported by Labor. Items 8 and 9 relate to increasing the penalty for disclosure, to which I referred, for the purpose of commercial misuse. We will be moving amendments to increase the increase that the government is proposing up to the level of $110,000 maximum penalty which, we believe, would more accurately reflect the value which would be potentially obtained from the unlawful misuse of such information being provided to politicians, and then subsequently unlawfully passed on.

The disclosure of this information to marketing companies could offer enormous commercial advantage, and it is essential that a sufficient penalty exists as a deterrent to such activity. We do not believe that 100 penalty units or $11,000 is sufficient for that, and so we are proposing an amendment to make the maximum penalty much more substantial.

I turn now to items 10, 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69 which relate to prisoners. The Electoral Act currently prohibits anyone serving a sentence of five years or longer for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory, or has been convicted of treason or treachery, and has not been pardoned, from being entitled to have their name placed on the roll or to vote at any election. Item 10 prohibits a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for any offence against any law of a state or territory, or the Commonwealth, from voting or remaining on the electoral roll.

The federal opposition will be opposing this item and proposing in its place amendments to tighten the current provisions. It should be noted that denying the right of all prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence, would present a breach of our obligations under the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 25(b), as well as the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948 article 21(i), recently re-signed by this government.

The provisions in the bill would deny all prisoners a vote. Hence a person, for example, serving an eight-week sentence which happened to coincide with an election period would be denied a vote. Yet, on the other hand, a person who had recently completed a two-year sentence that was not coinciding with an election would still be able to vote. In effect, they would not lose their right to vote.

Parliament has previously accepted that certain classes of prisoners should not be able to vote and we do not oppose that position. It is possible to distinguish between major and minor offences as the parliament has previously done. We believe that the five-year rule should remain but that it should be amended to provide also that anybody who has been continuously imprisoned from the return of the writs of the previous elections to the return of the writs of the instant elections that are being dealt with should also be deprived of a vote.

Item 18 removes the right of prisoners to remain enrolled for the subdivision for which the person was enrolled when he or she began serving the sentence. We believe that all prisoners should be entitled to be enrolled, and so we will be opposing this provision.

Item 29 requires the controller-general of prisons in each state and territory to forward to the Electoral Commission lists of all persons who have been convicted and are serving a sentence of imprisonment. This is consequential to the previous items I have referred to, and we will be opposing that item.

Similarly, with respect to item 36, which proposes to abolish mobile polling booths for prisons, the same view will be adopted by the opposition. Equally, with item 49, which proposes to abolish the rights of prisoners to apply for a postal or a prepoll vote, we will be taking the same view there.

Similarly, with items 59 and 69, which refer to consequential amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act regarding mobile booths and prepoll and postal voting for prisoners and the like, we will also be opposing those items.

I turn now to items 11, 12, 14, 28, 30, 31, 53 and 54 which relate to the early closure of the rolls. As the Labor senators outlined in their minority report to the Senate committee, these clauses represent a very undemocratic, crassly partisan and cynical approach by this government. Evidence given shows that 80,000 new enrolments occur in the one-week period before the closure of the rolls in an election period. Depriving these people of a vote certainly adds nothing to the democratic process. And it is no coincidence that this group of people happens to be the worst demographic for the present government electorally.

Items 30 and 31 provide for the close of rolls to be three working days after the issue of the writ. We will be opposing these items. At each election there is a rush of people who either apply to go on the roll or who need to update or change their address. It is often not until an election is called that many people turn their attention to such issues. Evidence given by the AEC to the Senate committee shows that a majority of the 320,000 people who notify change of address do so at the last available opportunity.

Further, about 80,000 new enrolments occur once the election is called. Closing the rolls so quickly would disenfranchise a large number of first time voters, most of whom would be young people. The restriction of three days for change of address prior to an election will be massively distorting. It would lead to more than 200,000 people potentially voting at their previous address, not their current address, which could be in another electorate, thereby completely distorting the democratic process and contrary to the intention of the act.

Items 11, 12, 14 and 28 are consequential to items 30 and 31. They provide a postponement period during which names cannot be added or deleted from the rolls as a result of enrolment applications. This postponement period commences at 8 p.m. on the day of the closure of the rolls until the close of polling if the AEC is satisfied the applicant has previously been an elector. However, for new electors the postponement period commences at 6 p.m. on the date of the issue of the writ and continues until the close of polling.

This means that no new electors can get onto the roll once the election has been called. The rationale is that the new proof of identity and other cross-checks for new electors will take too long to carry out and will not make the three-day limit. So those 80,000 new voters who apply to get on the electoral roll when an election is called will all be disenfranchised by this legislation. Labor will be opposing this measure.

Items 53 and 54 mirror these items in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act and we will also be opposing those. Items 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19 through to 27 relate to enrolment reform. The coalition has had a long and extremely paranoid obsession with claims or rumours of electoral fraud and clearly believes that this is the only reason it failed to win elections in 1983, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1993, et cetera.

We all want accurate rolls. The Labor Party believes strongly in the integrity of the electoral system. However, when questioned in the Senate inquiry, the AEC could not provide any evidence that the electoral rolls are rorted under the existing rules; nor can the Liberal Party come up with anything other than vague innuendo about this issue.

However, these provisions seem to be based on the paranoia of the Liberal Party searching for some excuse as to why they lost five elections in a row rather than any substantive evidence or actuality. They will lead to an enormous increase in bureaucratic procedures, additional costs of almost $4 million annually for the Commonwealth, money which could be much better spent on things like habitation reviews to continually update the addresses of people on the rolls.

The AEC gave evidence to the Senate committee regarding new enrolment procedures being currently adopted. These procedures put forward by the AEC can reasonably be expected to substantially reduce the possibility of enrolment fraud.

Items 13, 15 through to 17, 21 through to 23, and 25 through to 27 provide that an elector must enrol within one month of moving to a new address. Again, Labor will be opposing these provisions. We believe that this will disenfranchise a number of voters, particularly itinerant electors. Previously, people were required to reside in their new electorate for a period of one month before being eligible for enrolment in that electorate. They then had 21 days to notify the AEC of their change of enrolment. This proposed change converts that into a four-week period.

However, a much greater concern exists with respect to itinerant electors because item 17 seems to actually eliminate, perhaps unintentionally, the entire category of itinerant electors. It provides:

Subject to subsection (9), a person ceases to be eligible to be treated as an itinerant elector under this section as soon as a person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a subdivision.

However, the other items in this particular group of amendments provide that a person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a subdivision immediately. There is no longer a one-month waiting period. Therefore, an elector would cease to be treated as an itinerant elector as soon as they moved. In other words, it becomes impossible to qualify under the specific provisions as an itinerant elector.

This issue has been raised with the AEC, which has conceded that this is an unintended anomaly. We hope that the government will actually tackle this issue. In any event, we are opposing the changes which reduce the period from seven weeks to four weeks for re-enrolment consequent upon changing address. The fact that this anomaly exists is an illustration of the extent to which the government has rushed the legislation and really has not done its homework.

Item 19 provides that a witness to enrolment applications must be an elector, as prescribed by the regulations. We will be opposing this item. We find it hard to sign up to provisions that rely on regulations that we have not yet seen. The success of these proposed changes would be dependent on the regulations that the Senate, the House and, indeed, the Senate committee have not actually had the ability to scrutinise. We would not be able to form a view on this without seeing such regulations.

It is worth pointing out on this particular issue that the process of witnessing an application is really entirely separate from the process of actually enrolling. There is no particular reason to require somebody to be an elector in order to be a witness. That person, if not an elector, could still be a witness, for example, on a commercial contract. All the person is doing is actually witnessing the act, bearing witness to the fact that the individual who has signed that form is the individual he or she knows. Why you would add this qualification in is something of a mystery to me.

Item 20 is about verification of identity and citizenship for enrolment with at least one original form of proof of identity documentation. Labor has some concerns about this provision because it also relies on regulations that we have not seen. Nor have we been asked for any input into the make-up of those regulations. It also relies heavily on the records of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and on the accuracy of those records. We fear that not everyone will have records of citizenship. An example may be someone whose parents were made Australian citizens. The individual may have been included on their certificate, but he or she may not have a copy of the certificate.

Item 24 relates to lodgment by hand of enrolment applications with a prescribed agent, such as a post office or a semi-government organisation. Again, in the absence of any detail about what regulations propose to be promulgated under this provision, we are unable to support it.

Items 32 to 35 and 37 through to 42 deal with assisted voting. Basically, these provide that a presiding officer of a polling place is the only person who can assist a voter to mark the ballot. Another person must observe, and that person may be a polling official, a scrutineer or other nominated person. Items 55 to 58 and 60 to 65 mirror these provisions for the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. We think that these are sensible provisions and we will be supporting those particular proposals.

Items 43, 51, 52, 66, 71 and 72 deal with the preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes. Labor will be supporting these items. They are straightforward and will hopefully speed up the count by allowing a preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes to commence on the Monday before the polling day. However, the declaration envelopes must not be opened until after the close of the poll. The second check of envelopes excluded from the preliminary scrutiny is to be undertaken after the close of the poll. Items 66, 71 and 72 mirror these proposals in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act.

Now for the really interesting bit. Items 44 to 46 increase the funding and disclosure thresholds—what a surprise! The Liberal Party have a lot of form in this area where it comes to pushing the limits with respect to electoral funding and disclosure. They have a history of sidestepping, evading and avoiding the disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act for very obvious reasons. Now they are taking advantage of their numbers—at least in this House—to massively increase the electoral funding and disclosure thresholds in the knowledge that it will allow huge sums of money to be donated without disclosure.

Item 44 increases from $1,500 to $10,000 the amount above which a donor to a political party must furnish a return for the financial year. Item 45 increases the amount from $1,500 to $5,000 that political parties are required to disclose that they received from a person or organisation during a financial year. We will be opposing these items. We believe that these increases would allow for significant sums of money to go without disclosure, particularly when combined with item 46 which provides that the $5,000 figure does not have to be made up of individual amounts of less than $1,500.

Even the AEC conceded the problems with these measures. During the Senate inquiry, the head of funding and disclosure at the AEC conceded that the way a donor can make such a large donation without being disclosed is by donating up to the threshold to each state and territory branch of a political party. So, for a party that is organised nationally in every state and territory and has a national secretariat, you are looking at nine separate identified parties in effect for disclosure purposes.

A donor can make separate donations to all of these parties because they are not aggregated across Australia, only within each state and territory. The donors will not be disclosed. They could donate $4,999 a year to each state and territory branch of a political party and go undisclosed. That would add up to just short of $45,000.

The AEC also conceded that there were a number of ways in which donors could split their donations so that they would not be disclosed: for example, by each member of a family or company donating up to the disclosure limit. So you can therefore multiply that $45,000 to get even higher sums. Items 44 and 45 are basically yet another attempt by the coalition parties to weaken disclosure, a policy that they have consistently opposed for 15 years. Their tacit approval of the Greenfields Foundation rort does nothing to inspire confidence in the arguments they have brought to bear in the case for these clauses.

We will be pursuing further amendments in the Senate to close once and for all the Greenfields Foundation rort. The Labor Party has always advocated tight and transparent funding and disclosure provisions and we will not allow these items, driven by the Liberal Party national secretariat, to undermine the integrity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Item 46 relates to amounts of less than $1,500, increased from $500 previously, which need not be counted when calculating disclosure amounts. We believe that these amendments are acceptable.

Item 47 repeals section 332 of the act. This is a non-controversial amendment which Labor will be supporting. This currently requires the identification of authors of reports, et cetera when printing and publishing electoral advertisements, notices and so on. These requirements are identical to those set out in section 328, which operates at all times, whereas section 332 applies only during the election period. It is therefore clearly redundant. Item 68 mirrors those provisions that I have just referred to in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act and we will therefore be supporting that as well.

Items 48 and 67 deal with the failure of delivery of postal ballots. This measure is a sensible one, providing that, where postal ballot papers are delivered by alternate mechanisms other than post, the Court of Disputed Returns must not declare that a person returned as elected was not duly elected or declare an election void. Labor will be supporting this item.

Items 50 and 70 cover rules for the conduct of a preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes. This amends schedule 3 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and schedule 4 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to provide that, where a declaration envelope does not have a legible postmark and the signature of the witness bears a date after polling day, the vote is taken to have been marked after polling day and is therefore not to be included in the further scrutiny. We will be supporting these items.

In conclusion, while there are a number of non-controversial proposals in this legislation which we think will provide minor improvements to the Electoral Act, in overall terms the thrust of this legislation should not be accepted by this parliament. It is highly partisan legislation. It is designed explicitly to favour the conservative parties. It is designed to make it harder for particular sections of people in the community to be on the electoral roll, to get on the electoral roll, to stay on the electoral roll. And, of course, it is no coincidence that the types of people that that refers to—young people, itinerant voters and the like—just happen to be people who are more Labor voters than conservative voters. It is no coincidence: there is a long pattern of this sort of behaviour on the part of the conservative parties, both at state and federal level, seeking to restrict access to the electoral roll in order to keep off people who tend to vote Labor. That is the precise reason these amendments are being put forward.

Similarly, on the disclosure legislation, their proposals are all designed to allow their big business mates—the people whom Ron Walker goes around to with the big brown bag—to donate large sums of money without having to disclose it. We have heard some references to the unions donating to the Labor Party. Every cent of that is disclosed. Yet you set up rorts to ensure that you can have all of your obscure mates donating very substantial sums, with substantial commercial advantages relating to the possibilities of government decisions, and you want to avoid disclosure.

The Australian Electoral Commission, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, made the following points. With respect to the enrolment of prisoners and their entitlement to vote, it said:

The AEC makes no comment on the policy relating to this issue . . . there will be some practical difficulties in implementing this policy.

With respect to the use of elector data:

The AEC has no view on the policy to provide salutation and date of birth details to members, senators and political parties, or to allow for the use of elector data for research purposes.

With regard to assisted voting:

The AEC has not been on the public record about this issue. However, there could be some difficulties experienced in some polling places.

With regard to thresholds for reporting of donations:

The AEC advised against such changes in a submission to the JSCEM inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal election.

What that means is that they know what you are up to. You are trying to ensure that your mates can donate—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Order! I am reminded by the member for Cunningham that I do not know what they are up to at all. You might address your remarks through the chair.

Mr TANNER —They know what the government is up to in this whole process. It is simply a rort to ensure that much larger sums of corporate money can be donated to the Liberal and National parties without those amounts having to be disclosed. I will be moving the amendments I have outlined when we get to the committee stage and I foreshadow further amendments which may be moved to this legislation when we get to the Senate. I urge members to support the amendments being put forward by the opposition.