Senator CARR (9:37 PM) —The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is an important piece of legislation. It is legislation for which this government has sought to secure passage for some 12 months or so. It was originally aimed at getting this legislation through the parliament prior to the last election. With that in mind, one has to examine the motives behind the bill and the devices that this government has sought to institute through this bill.

As I understand the situation, the problem essentially arose because the government was not able to organise its legislative program with sufficient efficiency to secure the intended designs of the Liberal Party political administration in these matters. If one looks at the detail contained in this bill, one can understand just how fortunate it was that the parliament did not consider these matters before the last election. If you examine the matters that come to the fore in this bill, you will see that in the first instance there is an attempt being made by way of this legislation to essentially introduce a very undemocratic piece of legislation. It has been described in the minority report canvassing these issues as a crassly partisan and cynical approach by government to seek the early closure of the electoral rolls in such a manner as to manipulate and gain a very short-term advantage in what the government believes will be matters to its strength in any election campaign.

This has arisen essentially because in recent times the Liberal Party has expressed considerable concern that other political organisations in the country are able to enrol more people in the electoral cycle, that they have been somehow outclassed in that manner and that the electoral drives that have been conducted by political organisations in this country are perceived by members of the government to be illegitimate. We have seen this sort of argument presented by conservative governments all around the world. They are not happy to see a widespread enrolment of Aboriginal persons. As we see in the United States, the conservative forces there are unhappy about the widespread enrolment of various minority groups in the United States which are perceived to be a threat to the status quo.

Similarly, in this country there is a view being expressed—a long held view—that various groups in our community should not legitimately be on the roll. Conservative forces have the perception that we should not be encouraging people to be citizens of the country, that we should not be encouraging people to participate in the affairs of the country. It is always stated in such an underhand way as to suggest that there have been some irregularities conducted which would delegitimise the spreading of the citizenship entitlements to the electoral system.

The truth of the matter is that the Australian electoral system is internationally regarded as being of very high quality. The petty-minded attitudes that are expressed by some elements in the government about the extent to which persons are enrolled in this country and that citizenship has been developed and that people do participate in the electoral cycle demonstrate yet again the narrowness of the thinking that conservative entities have. I have heard Senator Minchin talk on many occasions about what he sees to be the importance of a voluntary voting system. At the heart of that concern for people like Senator Minchin is the fact that too many people are involved in the political process, that too many people are engaged in a discussion on public affairs and that too many people vote.

It is suggested to us that this means there have to be changes to the electoral system so as to prevent persons from participating in the electoral fortunes of this country. This is a very regressive point of view. It is an attitude that, frankly, demeans the parliament. Instead of encouraging people to participate and to take an interest in community affairs, they are restricting access to the decision making process and what appears to me to be essentially an unsubstantiated case that there has been widespread electoral fraud in this country. It is aimed squarely at delegitimising the democratic processes in this country which from time to time elect people other than Liberals. It is all very well if they elect Liberals, but it is not such a good thing for this government if there are other political points of view represented in this chamber, for instance. We have heard this evening the sorts of views that have been expressed about the need to change the voting system in such a way as to exclude a range of views that might otherwise be represented here.

The other issues of concern here go to the use and the abuse of data that is collected through the Electoral Commission. This is a very important issue. I think the questions of privacy are fundamental to the way in which we all expect governments to treat information. With that in mind, while we support the need to ensure that there is appropriate knowledge of the nature of our electoral system so that the political institutions in this country have a firm grasp of the people that we are trying to represent—and that is contained in measures in this bill which the opposition are supporting—there are other issues which arise about the commercial abuse of privacy.

With that in mind, the opposition feels that the proposed penalties that this government is suggesting in this bill quite clearly are grossly inadequate. We are arguing that there needs to be much more substantial sanction against commercial operations which seek to abuse privacy. There is no substantive argument in this chamber about the commercial advantage that could be taken from the misuse of the electoral system for persons who want to use information contained in electoral rolls to make a quid.

This is no doubt in my mind that there are matters which require further attention, and the opposition's amendments go some way to ensuring that there is a proper sanction against the misuse of electoral data. I think the penalties that Senator Faulkner has proposed of a $110,000 fine for breaches of these confidentiality questions are appropriate and ought attract the support of senators right around this chamber. I trust that is the case, but one never knows in this business and one is never surprised by what occurs here.

There is a very serious matter concerning this bill, and that is the failure of the government to face up to its obligations in regard to appropriate disclosure to protect the democratic ethos in this country, especially seen in the manner in which this government is seeking to increase from $1,500 to $5,000 the threshold for disclosure, which of course would see significant change in the amounts of money that would be required to be disclosed. Of course in that way we know once again in a very narrow, very partisan, very undemocratic and very cynical way this government is seeking to advantage itself by what it sees to be a short-term political advantage. And when we consider on top of that the advantages that come with tax deductibility, it is quite clear that this is, once again, an opportunity for the conservative political parties, who naturally do have an advantage in terms of their relationship with those that have wealth and power in this country and who have the capacity to fund electoral campaigns.

And there is a real concern emerging about the clearly, transparently devious devices that are being pursued by the coalition in regard to its fundraising activities—and I speak here of the Greenfields scam that is being organised in such a way as to ensure that the minimum level of disclosure is reported. I notice that the Australian Electoral Commission has finally taken steps to address these matters. I notice that, of course, there is an appeal mechanism available to the principals of the Greenfields outfit. They have not sought to exercise it yet; one expects they will but, again, one should never be surprised. I hope the Australian Electoral Commission is able to bring before this parliament and before the public detailed information on the way in which these scams have been organised by the Liberal Party to secure advantage for itself in the way in which loans are offered at minimal interest rates and in such a manner as to prevent the identity of the donors of those funds being realised to the public.

I notice in Victoria, where of course I have some interest, that the treasurer of the Liberal Party has done extremely well, and of course has himself personally bankrolled the Liberal Party not so long ago in the loans he was able to secure from the National Australia Bank. That raised some serious issues, particularly given his associations with major events projects in Melbourne. I speak here of Ron Walker, the Liberal Party treasurer. I speak here of the association he has with the casino in Melbourne, and of course I speak here of his association with various international major events promotions, which are clearly aimed at securing very large sums of money.

One has every expectation that the questions being raised when these international events are promoted are linked to the capacity to donate to the Liberal Party, especially with Jeff Kennett obviously working in that way, and he is quite unashamed in his approach. Jeff Kennett in fact has no shame when it comes to discussing these sorts of issues. I trust that the Australian Electoral Commission will be able to get to the bottom of the Greenfields Foundation, and I trust there will be steps taken to prevent these scams operating into the future.

Finally, might I say that this bill contains what I think are some very serious attacks upon human rights, particularly on the rights of prisoners. Nowhere can I find in any discussion of Australian law—and I am not as learned as perhaps Senator Cooney is on these matters; I do appreciate Senator Cooney's strong representations to this chamber on these questions—that the conditions of punishment are part of the penalties that one has inflicted upon one for breaches of the law. So when it comes to the question of voting, I think every senator here is entitled to ask the question: why is it that this government proposes to remove the right to vote for some prisoners—and clearly those who are on very short sentences that happen to be confined in electoral time are prevented from voting—whereas others will still be entitled to vote? I do ask the question about whether this legislation is seeking to undermine Australia's commitment to our obligations under international law in terms of the provisions and protection of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I say to you that this is a bill that clearly is designed to manipulate the short-term advantage to the government.

Debate interrupted.