Mr NAIRN (4:37 PM) —Just prior to question time today I began my contribution to this debate. I was commenting on the fact that in this parliament we have a very good system whereby after each general election the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducts a review of the election, giving people from all over Australia the opportunity to make submissions about its conduct. It also is an opportunity to review the Electoral Act and electoral processes. It is an excellent system that we have that allows this to occur. It certainly helps the democratic process.

We have seen our Commonwealth Electoral Act develop over the years under this sort of system. I think we have one of the best electoral systems in the world, but it can always be made better. The report that came out of the last review after the 1996 election made numerous recommendations. A number of those recommendations have already been included in legislation and further recommendations are taken up in this bill.

I had also begun to comment prior to question time on some of the provisions of the bill, in particular on the provision that will require new electors to produce one original form of identification at the time of enrolment. The Labor Party opposed this provision. I was commenting that currently all you need to do is simply fill out a form, sign it, have somebody who only has to be eligible to be on the roll to witness it, send it off and you are on the roll. There is not much else that we do that is quite so simple. I wonder why we have such a light-hearted attitude to the roll when it is such an important thing—being given the right to vote in federal elections.

When we go along to Centrelink or somewhere like that these days to register for unemployment benefits or any other social security, you certainly just cannot fill out a form and then be given a right. There are certain other things that have to be done and in particular you have to be identified. When you apply for a passport, you certainly have to provide certain information. No matter what you choose, it would seem to me that there is a requirement usually to provide some sort of basic identification. Even if you take going down to the local video shop, I am reliably informed—I have not done it myself—that you cannot rock into a video shop and say, `I want to join the club that allows me to hire videos from here,' without providing some sort of identification.

Mr Slipper interjecting—

Mr NAIRN —That is right. It has to be only basic identification, but it is some sort of identification that you are a real person and the name that you are wanting to take out that transaction in is yours. Given that you have such a basic requirement for something like hiring a video, I am sure most people find it quite staggering—and I have spoken to many people who have applied to get on the roll and they are quite astounded—that all you have to do is fill out a form, sign it and get someone who does not even have to be on the roll—they only have to be eligible to be on the roll—send it in and you are on.

Mr Slipper —It is bizarre.

Mr NAIRN —It really is quite bizarre, as the member for Fisher comments. I do not think it is a large imposition to ask people to provide some sort of basic identification. It could be as basic as a letter from Social Security, something to do with taxation or a drivers licence. There is a whole variety of things that this legislation will allow to be the basic identification.

I recall the public hearings of the committee that took place after the 1996 election when we were raising this matter. We had a variety of submissions. Many submissions supported that stronger evidence should be given of somebody's eligibility to be on the roll before they are actually enrolled, but also many people opposed it. I could never understand why. It seemed to be a simple argument. `We don't want to make it difficult for people to go on the roll' was about the best argument that anybody put up.

We then had submissions from a Western Australian Labor MP who said, `It is very difficult for a lot of my constituents in isolated areas to provide some sort of identification.' When I then asked him, `Were these constituents able to in some cases draw social security benefits, for instance, or have a bank account?' he said, `Yes, no problem.' To be able to draw social security benefits or conduct a bank account requires identification. So if they were able to receive benefits from the public or if they were able to have a bank account for those benefits to be paid into, surely they therefore have identification as to whom they are for when they enrol to vote in a federal election.

I think it is a very small measure and I think it will help the integrity of the roll and the confidence in the roll, which is what we are talking about. I know we have a good system, but there is always somebody out there trying to work their way around it and to find a way to rort it. (Quorum formed) It would seem that providing some sort of identification to be on the roll certainly rubs a few Labor people up the wrong way. They really do not like a bit of accountability.

Let us go to some of the other provisions in this particular bill. It also provides for the enrolment form to be signed and witnessed by a person coming from a prescribed area. This is in line with a passport. Once again, it is adding to the integrity of the roll in that you have to get a legitimate person to witness it—not somebody making up a name or any old person but somebody who can be identified as well—which is in line with many government documents such as a passport where there is a category of people. Once again, it is a very broad category. It will not be onerous for people in all sorts of different circumstances. It adds a bit of substance to that enrolment.

A further measure in the bill provides for all electors to notify the AEC of a change of address within one month of moving. Once again, this is a matter where currently there are complicated provisions, and people are not sure what they are required to do or not to do. I recall the inquiry of the joint standing committee receiving a variety of submissions which demonstrated there was a lot of confusion as to what people should and should not do. It was felt that standardising the process in some way was far better.

Having one month to notify the AEC after a person moves, I do not think is unreasonable. It falls in line with probably what everybody already does with everything else in their life. Part of these changes is to change the culture that people have in this regard. If you are going to have the right to vote, some responsibility has to be put back on the person to maintain their enrolment.

When a person moves from one house to the next, they are very quick to notify the post office because they want to get their mail readdressed. They are very quick to notify the local electricity company, the water company or the local government—they do a variety of things that are all part of their normal lives. We have to help the AEC become part of that normal life as well. Having the right to vote is a great responsibility, and it should be put into the same league as changing your address for postal references and things like that. Bringing the electoral enrolment into line with similar sorts of situations by saying that you are to notify the AEC within one month of moving, I do not think is unreasonable. Once again, it is all helping to strengthen the integrity of the electoral roll, because clearly things need to change.

If you go back through many of the elections, you will find that an enormous number of transactions seem to take place as soon as an election is called. The Labor Party would have us believe that all of those people are just out there, having not thought about changing their enrolment from when they moved three years before, or miraculously having just become eligible to be on the roll—all those people then lodge applications to change their enrolment or to enrol for the first time in the week following the calling of an election. In 1996 those numbers were some 438,000. That is an enormous number of transactions for the AEC to cope with over a few days.

Many changes that we recommended out of the inquiry and that have been picked up by the bills are designed to prevent that great rush when an election is called. The AEC will be working a lot closer with local government authorities, electricity and water authorities—all those sorts of people—to ensure that, when somebody lodges a change of address for electricity or gas, they will also be automatically given a notice to change their enrolment. Once that starts to filter through the system, we will no longer have the situation of these hundreds of thousands of people all of a sudden wanting to get on the roll when an election is called. That is why I feel it is very fair that, for new electors, the roll will close at 6 p.m. when the writs are issued. (Quorum formed)

The Labor Party might think it is very smart in preventing me from completing my speech by trying to muzzle me. However, the same thing would not have happened with the previous member for Lalor, because he had a lot more intellect than that. (Time expired)