The Coalition majority on the parliamentary committee on electoral matters has a recommended tightening of enrolment procedures for the electoral roll. It says people enrolling or changing enrolment details (like address) should provide some from of identification. That recommendation – like a lot of new regulation – will impose a burden on the many because of the malfeasance of a few.
Prime Minister John Howard argued that one has to provide identification in order to hire a video, so why not to enrol to vote? However, the analogy soon falls down. The main reason videos stores require identification is because without it so many videos would be stolen. Similarly with underage drinking; without ID those under 18 would obtain alcohol. But that is not the case with respect to the Australian voting system. Evidence given to the committee by the Australian Electoral Commission stated that there was no case in Australian electoral history where an election of any individual member was affected by impersonation or fraudulent enrolment. In short, there is no mischief or malfeasance to be attended to (unlike the video-store or underage drinking situations). There is simply no need to impose a system of identification.
At least the committee had the good sense not to recommend also that people should show identification at the polling place when voting. That would unnecessarily add to voting time. Once again, the Electoral Commission says there is no case of ther esult of an election being affected by double voters. Instead the committee suggested that sex and date of birth be put on the roll. That simple step would prevent and deter a lot of impersonation, because any impersonator would risk impersonating someone they are obviously not.\
The committee recommended also that the rolls be closed the day the election is announced. This is unnecessarily restrictive.
So why impose further burdens on voters on election day? The conclusion one must draw is that identification requirements and closing rolls early will have the effect of disenfranchising some people – – most likely Aborigines and the young. These people are more likely to vote Labor. The Coalition members on the committee have made a recommendation which will impose an unnecessary burden on voters for their own electoral advantage.
They got the chance to do this because of past Labor Party shenanigans. Rorting of pre-selection ballots in the Labor Party in times past caused Labor to require electoral roll enrolment as evidence of eligibility to vote in a particular electorate’s pre-selection. Alas for Labor, some very determined pre-selection rorters went so far as to get themselves on the electoral roll fraudulently, not in order to cheat at a federal or state election, but only to cheat at the pre-selection. In the context of a federal election, the numbers were trivial and would not affect the outcome, even if they were enough to change a pre-selection. Nonetheless, the exposure of the fraud and the ease with which it was done has alarmed some people. That enabled the Coalition to justify the inquiry and to propose the identification requirements. Labor has brought this upon itself.
But the mischief that needs immediate attention is elections within political parties, not enrolments by the overwhelmingly honest Australian public. The committee was right to recommend that registration and public funding of political parties be conditional upon them having one vote, one value for internal elections and that parties are able to use the Electoral Commission to conduct them. In fact, the latter should be compulsory.
Why should some 10 million voters be inconvenienced with more red tape when the real culprits are election riggers within the Labor Party?