Page 1095 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One would assume that there was. The requirement that someone produce identification does not mean that they have to carry identification with them all their lives. It does not mean that they have to register their identification. This is simply a requirement that on that one day, every three years or so, they prove who they are, so that their valuable right to vote is not diminished. Every fraudulent vote diminishes every other valid vote.
Members may suggest that there are problems with this, but I suggest that if there are any particular details that need to be handled they can be handled by regulations. Naturally enough, the public would need to be made aware that on polling day they have to produce identification. The polls clearly show that most people would not disagree with that. I think others would readily accept that, if it is a majority view. As I have always said, other members in this Assembly, or other parties or other groups, for that matter, can do their own polling and - more importantly perhaps - release the results. Then we would know what they are polling and what they are not polling, rather than just using them to rephrase their Rinso ads to align with what the majority want and not to serve the majority will.
As for what identification is produced, the example I gave in the polling question was the driver's licence. It would do admirably. A telephone or electricity account would go a long way towards showing identification. Naturally enough, there is practically no form of identification that someone carries that cannot be forged. However, anyone making any statement talking about the potential for forgery would have to acknowledge, first of all, that there is no requirement whatsoever, at the moment, to forge anything because you simply do not need to prove your identity in any way, shape or form. While documents can be forged, I suggest that that is not a valid argument. If someone wants to open a bank account in Canberra they must produce identification. The requirements for that are very strong. The Chief Minister mentioned recently, when talking about electoral matters, that the test we require of Canberrans before they vote is very small, or words to that effect. Boy, is it small! It is a test that anyone would pass, whether or not they wrote the exam paper.
The potential for vote fraud is important. The proof of vote fraud is not necessarily required. We should not allow a system as important as voting for members of this Assembly to be open to fraud. We have a situation where anyone can say that they are someone else, even before the person goes along to that same polling booth. You can go along there and find that you have been marked off already. You say, "I did not vote". They say, "Sorry; you are already down. The vote has gone in. Tough luck". Regardless of the fact that this may not be the practice around Australia, I suggest that the practice around Australia is also in need of review and change.
There are many methods that could be used for tightening the potential for vote fraud. One that has been suggested to the Federal inquiry on electoral matters is a voter card that would be mailed to people at their homes. They would bring it along on the day and present it. It would be taken off them at that time so that it could not be used by anybody else. This would be very costly and also would be open to fraud. Unless you made the electoral card secure it could very easily be copied. If you do make it secure you have the problem of cost. In England they have used a similar system for many years. It appears to work quite well over there, but I do not think it is the one for Australia.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .