Second reading
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:25): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2025. This is a very different bill than the one that was introduced late last year, and for good reasons. We are certainly pleased that it is a very different bill because there were a number of concerns. It is in fact the same bill, but it is now being amended by the government through a series of house amendments, and we are very pleased to see those house amendments coming forward because there is a level of concern in the community, not least among political parties, about the issue of nominated entities and public funding and donations – all of those issues wrapped up together. A current case in the High Court has created a level of uncertainty, which is why the government is seeking to remove those aspects of this bill in relation to nominated entities, because we await the judgement of the High Court on that matter.
There are a number of other aspects of this legislation that the member for Brighton has gone through and raised our concerns about, and there are other aspects of which we are supportive. As the member for Tarneit indicated, running elections is increasingly difficult, increasingly complicated and increasingly resource intensive, and I might say likewise for running in elections, as I am sure all members of this place know. I do not think anyone ever finds it easy or simple to find supporters and helpers to work and help out. That brings to mind the one change in this with respect to pre-poll. Early voting is loved by voters and probably loathed by most of us in the actual political game. I love pre-poll; I love the engagement you get. As a sitting MP, having the ability to go and stand there for the full period – and most of us have got at least two booths, particularly in regional areas – is great to get engagement. You see people that you do not see for four years sometimes, but it is a very important opportunity for people to be able to vote and to get in and do that.
I have had a concern, though, for a long time, that we have morphed from having an election day to an election fortnight, and that has fundamentally changed the nature of elections. There has not really been a lot of debate about that over time. Certainly electoral commissions across the country, including the AEC and the Victorian Electoral Commission, have embraced early voting because they see it as a way to ensure full enfranchisement of the voter, especially people who have issues in being able to get out and vote, and pre-poll does that. Early voting gives them that opportunity. But it has got to be within reason. When you have got postal voting, when you have got two weeks of early voting, when you have got voting on the day and when you have got late voting on Thursday nights as in the last couple of elections, there are plenty of opportunities, and there is really not a lot of excuses for people not to be able to vote.
Particularly in Victoria, and I think I am right in saying every other state where we have fixed terms, it is not like an election should be a surprise to anyone. It is not called in the middle of ‘Oh, well, I was going on holidays, and you’ve called an election, so I can’t get to vote.’ We know when the Victorian election is going to be every four years, so people can make arrangements around that. I absolutely support and appreciate the ability to make sure that people can vote as comfortably as possible, but I think the clause in this legislation setting a default of 10 days rather than 12 is a step in the right direction. It has been very difficult for many of us to do the quick turnaround from the close of nominations and the ballot draw on the Friday to opening up voting on Monday morning. Giving us all a couple of days extra will make the electoral process better, so that is good.
One thing I would just make a comment on – it is not directly related to the legislation – but where it is possible the electoral commission should be trying to find the best locations for early voting and polling booths more generally. I know they do this, but the practice that has been around for a number of years of utilising a vacant shop, whether that is in a country town or in a suburb somewhere, is not ideal, particularly when it is in the middle of a shopping strip. It causes upset to neighbouring shops sometimes because you have got booth workers and you have got voters coming and going. I think as a principle if the electoral commission can find locations like civic centres – whether it is a hall, whether it is a senior centre or something like that – not right in the CBD of a town, not in the main shopping strip where booth workers are harassing people who are just going about their business shopping, because they do not know as someone walks up if they are going in to vote or they are just going past to get some milk. I think ideally we should see the commission try and find those sorts of civic centres – as I said, halls or community centres or senior citizen centres – where they are available. That would make it much easier to run early voting.
The member for Brighton has outlined some of our concerns. We are pleased, again, to see the public service secondment aspects of this bill taken out, because we had some concerns about those. He has raised our concern about the commissioner’s delegations. I think the commissioner really has one big job and should be able to do that, particularly in relation to the declaration of polls and the like. It is important that the commissioner does that, and that should not be delegated.
On the issue of print house requirements, I can probably understand why there is a desire to remove the publishing of print house requirements on printed material. But as the member for Brighton has pointed out, it is a bit of a failsafe, a bit of a backup for us, because whilst all election material needs to be authorised, sometimes it is difficult for the commission or those investigating potential breaches to actually find the person who has authorised material, and having a secondary requirement for the printer’s details to be included just gives us another way to go and find someone who may have authorised particular material. I think that is important.
The member for Brighton touched on the issue of preference distributions, and we are seeking to move an amendment to ensure that they are done for all electorates. I know that it is the case that they are not always done, and I think it is important that the community understands the full preference allocations. It actually happened in my by-election in 2015. Because I was elected after the second or third candidate had been eliminated, they stopped and did not publish a full preference distribution. As the member for Brighton indicated, the electoral commission does not always get it right as to who the two-candidate preferred count should be taken with, and that was the case in point too. There was no Labor candidate, so the commission decided it would be between the Nationals and the Greens, but in fact the final two candidates were pretty much always going to be from the Nationals and the Liberal Party in that situation, and that was the case. But a full preference count was not published. I managed to actually get it from the local manager at the time, but I think an amendment that would ensure that a full two-party preferred preference distribution is undertaken and published is an important thing for understanding the state of every single electorate across the state.
We have seen the issues that occurred in 2022, and I think there will be other members who may go into some more detail about some of the concerns that occurred with the last election. I know in my own electorate and the neighbouring electorate of Bass there were issues with the availability of ballot papers in a number of booths late in the afternoon, and that is a significant concern. I know there are backup measures that a returning officer can deal with, but there were certainly some issues there where there were not enough ballot papers produced for certain booths and people had to be turned away. That is a serious concern as well.
There are other aspects of this legislation making some changes, including changes to the registration of political parties, taking it from 120 days prior to the election to 180 days. That again reduces some of the pressure on the electoral commission. Again I say that I do not have any issue with that. If you are serious about trying to set up a political party, you should be doing that well in advance of an election. In general, with the amendments that the government has now put forward to the original bill, we do not oppose this in principle. We will be moving some amendments in the other place, and I look forward to this improving things for the election this year.