Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Just as we did in the other place, the Greens will be proudly and gladly supporting the Electoral Amendment (Alternative Voting Procedures) Bill 2025. It is worth reminding ourselves that we are amending this act to make sure that it is genuinely inclusive and provides equity to people of all abilities more than two decades after the Electoral Act 2004 was enacted. It has taken us that long as a society. That is a matter of some regret.
Looking forward, we are standing here because of the tireless advocacy of people with disability and advocacy organisations to make sure that a longstanding disenfranchisement of people with a range of abilities has been embedded here in Tasmania. I noted what the honourable member for Nelson said in her very informative speech about the practical and legislative barriers that there have been to genuine participation in our democratic processes. There have also been some cultural barriers that we should acknowledge as well.
As I was looking at this bill, I recalled when I was the proud minister for Disability Services, and I was informed by a client about a large disability provider, who I will not name, it is not necessary to do so. This provider managed group homes, and this client – it was after a federal election, I believe it was the 2013 federal election – said to me that they were not given an opportunity to vote in the federal election. I followed that up with the provider and it was put to me that it was an administrative oversight; it was a bit of an ‘oops’ moment. Given the number of people over the age of 18 who had the right to vote who were being provided with supports by that provider, that oops moment, that apparent administrative oversight, disenfranchised many people.
Off the back of that conversation, I started to ask around some of the other people who I came into contact with in that wonderful portfolio. It became clear to me that it was not necessarily the exception that people with disability were being disenfranchised. I spoke to people who could not remember the last time they had been given the opportunity to vote. That is deeply worrying. It was not because they had memory problems.
Here we are again, more than a decade later, and we are putting through this parliament an amendment bill which is sort of simple in its nature, but very powerful in the effect that it will have to make sure that our democracy is genuinely inclusive, where everyone’s right to vote is upheld.
We are doing this at a time, as I have spoken about in debates before, when democracy is under assault around the world. You look to the United States of America and see how hard some political actors have tried to disenfranchise whole cohorts of people from voting. People are excluded from the voting and democratic system in the United States of America on the basis of their skin colour or their cultural background or their gender or where they live. One of the greatest flaws of it is that it is not a compulsory voting system like our own. Whoever is elected in the United States cannot argue that they have a full electoral mandate, because of the level of disenfranchisement caused by wilful political actions, but also the fact that voting is not a compulsory obligation in the United States of America – nor is it in the United Kingdom, for example.
Compulsory voting provides us with a robustness here. While conservatives do not like it, it delivers electoral outcomes that, in the main, reflect the will of the people, especially here with the Hare-Clark system. I agree with the member for Nelson in highlighting the importance and the value of inserting the Object of Division 9A, which says, ‘the object of this division is to ensure that electors of all abilities and needs are reasonably provided with the opportunity to vote at an election’. Again, what a shame that this has to be made explicit in legislation that is 21 years old because we have not dealt with it before. It should already be embedded in the act, in fact, it should be a presumption within the act that all available steps will be taken to make sure people’s voices and views and votes are taken in an election.
I note that the amendments empower the Tasmanian Electoral Commission (TEC) to assess whether an alternative voting procedure needs to be established when a matter that comes before them about a person with a disability, an impairment, or other circumstances, either through an advocacy organisation or the person themselves on their own motion. As the member for Nelson said in her contribution, we have had phone voting for some time. I have spoken to people who are vision‑impaired for whom voting is a right that they exercise where their privacy and the secrecy and sanctity of their vote is not necessarily protected. That is a real concern. Again, it reinforces the importance of empowering the TEC to undertake the work to make sure that that right to vote is protected, but also the privacy of that vote is respected.
I am also very thankful for the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. As a member of that committee, we do vital work. At the moment, we are examining the conduct of the 2024 state election as well as an electoral amendment bill to remove or amend section 196 of the Electoral Act. I am certain that we will keep an eye on the rollout and effect of the amendments to the Electoral Act that we are debating today.
I recall some evidence that came before the committee about the 2024 state election, I believe it was from the Labor state secretary, who was arguing that we need to move towards electronic voting. Everyone will have a view on this, I am sure, but I spoke with some of my very conservative colleagues in the other place, who I do not often agree with, and we agreed on the importance of paper ballots, hand counting, and robust electoral processes, so that we do not end up in a situation like we have seen, again, in the United States of America. There are huge question marks hanging over there about whether their voting machines can be hacked, how safe they are, who can get into them, whether your vote is protected, and whether your vote is received and counted. This is one of those issues where there will be resistance, not only from within this place but from the broader community as well, if there is ever a move towards wholesale electronic voting. Why would we trust a machine with our vote? I would rather trust the Tasmanian Electoral Commission on their outstanding record of conducting independent election counts. I would much rather trust the TEC to receive and count my vote than an electronic machine. That is a right and a trust that should be available to every single Tasmanian over the age of 18, regardless of their ability.
Again, I want to thank advocates for this reform, and it is a reform. It is only a short bill, only four or five pages long – I am wrong, it is seven pages long, including the front page. It is only a short bill, but it is a significant reform and it is important that we do this. It is one of those pleasant and too rare experiences in this place where we are all going to be in furious agreement about the importance of passing this amendment bill. I am glad to stand here as a representative of the Tasmanian Greens and our justice spokesperson to support this amendment bill because it will make our democracy that much more robust and inclusive for all Tasmanians.
