|
senate vote 2020-09-02#11
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-09-25 09:32:42
|
Title
Bills — Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020; in Committee- Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Voter ID
Description
<p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>[by video link] by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1038 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 57, page 18 (after line 25), after subsection 200DI(1), insert:</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.265.1) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means they failed.
- Senator Waters [explained her amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.265.1):
- > *These amendments put beyond doubt that voter ID should not be a slippery slope towards voter ID at the polls. In dissenting reports to the 2016 JSCEM election review, both my party and the Labor Party noted that the government's claims of double voting and voter irregularity were actually not substantiated and were unsupported by the evidence. In Australia and internationally, the evidence supports the view that voter ID in fact suppresses and hinders citizen participation. Requiring voters to show formal identification documents risks disenfranchising First Nations people, family violence victims, young people without a driver's licence or homeless and itinerant people. The Electoral Commission has said that up to 1.5 per cent of new enrolments could be people without formal ID.*
- >
- > *I note that my home state of Queensland introduced voter ID laws before the 2015 election and, after a low voter turnout, the laws were repealed.*
- However, South Australian Senator [Don Farrell](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/don_farrell) (Labor) disagreed with the amendments, [arguing that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-02.267.1):
- > *Labor shares the concerns regarding the implementation of so-called voter ID laws and any amendments which would discourage voting and undermine our system of compulsory voting. We are assured, however—and we will be seeking further assurance from the Electoral Commissioner—that the amendments contained in the bill will not result in a polling official demanding identification. We therefore do not believe the change proposed by the Greens is necessary and will not be supporting the amendment.*
<p class="italic">(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall authorise a voting officer to require a person attending before the voting officer to produce any document to verify the information in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b).</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 82, page 21 (after line 26), after subsection 229(1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall authorise a presiding officer or voting official to require a person attending before the officer or official to produce any document to verify the information in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b).</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 156, page 33 (after line 20), after subsection 30(1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall authorise a presiding officer or voting official to require a person attending before the officer or official to produce any document to verify the information in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b).</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 207, page 39 (after line 9), after subsection 73CI(1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall authorise a voting officer to require a person attending before the voting officer to produce any document to verify the information in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b).</p><p>These amendments put beyond doubt that voter ID should not be a slippery slope towards voter ID at the polls. In dissenting reports to the 2016 JSCEM election review, both my party and the Labor Party noted that the government's claims of double voting and voter irregularity were actually not substantiated and were unsupported by the evidence. In Australia and internationally, the evidence supports the view that voter ID in fact suppresses and hinders citizen participation. Requiring voters to show formal identification documents risks disenfranchising First Nations people, family violence victims, young people without a driver's licence or homeless and itinerant people. The Electoral Commission has said that up to 1.5 per cent of new enrolments could be people without formal ID.</p><p>I note that my home state of Queensland introduced voter ID laws before the 2015 election and, after a low voter turnout, the laws were repealed. The AEC has previously said that adopting voter ID would involve:</p><p class="italic">… significant start-up and on-going costs; voter inconvenience; possible disenfranchisement of a number of voters; and possible delays in the delivery of election results because of an increase in the level of declaration voting.</p><p>Many of the Electoral Commission staff are employed casually at elections, and we note the ALP's recommendation that casual staff training make it clear that they cannot ask for ID. Our proposed amendments simply confirm that position.</p><p>There's something a little bit odd in making voting compulsory and then fining people who don't vote but, at the same time, making it harder for them to vote. So we support making the questions used to establish a voter's identification more flexible, and this would assist migrants or people with low literacy. Our amendments simply seek to ensure that this flexibility is not used to introduce the government's long-coveted plan for voter ID—I refer to the remarks made earlier today about the excitement that the government showed when they thought that they might get support for bringing voter ID in down the track. This parliament should not take any step that would have the effect of reducing the number of Australians participating in our democracy. I commend these amendments to the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>Firstly, I don't quite understand how somehow it is inconsistent to have compulsory voting and voter ID requirements to ensure the integrity of the voting process when there are about 20 jurisdictions in the world that have got compulsory voting—including the jurisdiction in which I was born, where I grew up and first exercised my right to vote. And, let me tell you, we had to show our identification card before we were able to vote, and that was not in any way problematic. The government, of course, is on the record as saying that we support voter identification as a way to manage the risk of multiple voting, which I have absolutely no doubt has occurred over the years and throughout history.</p><p>Having said all of that, this bill actually doesn't come anywhere near, in any way, shape or form, introducing voter ID requirements; in fact, the bill does the opposite. This bill allows greater flexibility for polling officials about how they can word the three mandatory questions before they hand out a ballot paper. This is intended to particularly help the AEC communicate with voters who face language barriers or disability issues. The three questions are about name, address and whether someone has voted previously in the same election—reasonable questions, I would have thought. Nowhere in the bill is there any new fourth question permitting an official to ask a voter for ID documents.</p><p>So, on that basis, this is an entirely superfluous amendment. The amendment is based on a totally factually incorrect reading of the bill and an incorrect understanding of the Electoral Act. The amendment is partly predicated on an assumption that the AEC will do a poor job of training its staff, including senior officers, at each booth. We think it is not required and the government will oppose this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>Labor shares the concerns regarding the implementation of so-called voter ID laws and any amendments which would discourage voting and undermine our system of compulsory voting. We are assured, however—and we will be seeking further assurance from the Electoral Commissioner—that the amendments contained in the bill will not result in a polling official demanding identification. We therefore do not believe the change proposed by the Greens is necessary and will not be supporting the amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">David Fawcett</p><p>The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1038 be agreed to.</p>
|