Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3262 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Finally, we must have integrity. The proposed system will require a network. It must be isolated from the Internet and it must be accessible only to authorised users. You can imagine the fallout if anybody with a PC and a modem could get access to the central server. That is happening elsewhere every day of the year. People are getting access to NASA and to the US Department of Defense. It is easy for some people. What would happen to our electoral system if somebody hacked into the system and changed it?

Mr Speaker, I do not think that it is a simple matter. I have two principal concerns about the bill and the proposed changes that underlie it. The minister has not told us two things. The first is what it will cost to create the new system, to install it at each election and to maintain and store the equipment under tight security between elections, nor has he told us what the government expects to save by installing the system. Surely a basic cost-benefit analysis that tells you what it is going to cost you and what it is going to save you is a prerequisite to installing such a system, because it is not going to be cheap. If it is cheap, it probably will not work.

Unless the savings exceed the cost, I am not convinced that we should abandon a system which has served us well enough in the past, albeit a bit slow in coming to a result. A simple fascination with technology is not, of itself, sufficient reason to go into such a system. Its benefits have to be proven and its integrity and safety have to be proven.

The aspect of the bill that causes me most concern is what it does not provide. In particular, I feel concerned that the bill provides no means for this Assembly to review and approve the decisions that the commissioner makes about software and security before they are implemented. I have utmost confidence in the commissioner, but at the end of the day we must be responsible for the outcome of changing the processes or mechanisms of the electoral system; so we should be able to review what the commissioner decides and satisfy ourselves that what he is proposing to do is in the public interest.

I believe that this legislature has both the right and the duty to put its imprimatur on the design and operating principles of the machines. I believe that this Assembly should be informed about and approve how the software will work, especially in light of the Robson rotation system. It is a bit different from most other electoral systems.

I believe that this Assembly should be satisfied in advance of their establishment about the safety systems in relation to the ballot and about arrangements for keeping machines and the software secure, not only when they are being installed at the polling booths, connected to the electoral network, used by voters and then having the results of the ballot ascertained, but also during those long periods between elections when they will be sitting in secure storage, presumably, doing nothing. These are not issues that can be ignored or set aside.

The government has presented a bill that denies the Assembly the power to review and approve the proposed systems and their ancillary arrangements before they are locked into the voting culture of the territory. This withholding seems at best to be suspicious, at worst insidious. The electorate is entitled to have its elected representatives satisfied that the new system under which future Assemblies will be elected is truly democratic and safe from taint or inference. The government has, through the present bill, denied members the chance to fulfil that expectation, in my view.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .