Like the weird uncle who watches too many Tucker Carlson clips on YouTube, the Coalition is suddenly very concerned about voter fraud.
On Tuesday the joint partyroom approved introducing a bill which would force people to present a driver’s licence, passport, Medicare card or other official identification to be allowed to vote.
It’s a thought bubble that has been savaged by Labor – Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese called it “Trumpian” and Senator Tim Ayres called it “segregationist Jim Crow legislation”.
And given the Australian Electoral Commission described the problem of multiple voting as “vanishingly small” it seems like a solution in search of a problem — especially when the Morrison government has spent a lot of time this week saying legislation is bad.
So why is it pushing this in the final sitting weeks of the year? It all comes down to a bit of culture war.
Years in the making
The Morrison government’s interest in voter identification laws seems sudden, but it’s actually been years in the making. In late 2018 (also months before an election), the Liberal-dominated Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended voter identification laws be introduced.
The committee’s chair, Queensland Senator James McGrath, has a bit of an obsession with voting. He’s a fan of replacing compulsory voting with optional voting. And he’s been the biggest pusher of the proposed bill.
Speaking to the ABC this morning, McGrath said asking for ID was a sensible and non-controversial reform: “The Greens and Labor have been quite hysterical in their response. No one’s going to be excluded from voting. There’s nothing to do with culture wars.”
Culture war never ends
But in the background the culture war is humming along. ID laws are a huge part of the many ways Republicans in the United States restrict voting in ways which progressives say systemically disenfranchises poorer, Black and Latin voters who tend to skew Democrat.
For years, belief in stopping “voter fraud” was widespread among US conservatives. Then Donald Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was rigged turned a conspiracy theory into a full-blown article of faith for the American right.
McGrath and the Coalition aren’t the only ones interested in voter ID laws. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts — the clearest example of the Fox News to Canberra pipeline — has railed against “voter fraud” for some time.
After the US election, he started repeating Trumpian claims about election software being used to rig the result. And earlier this year he introduced an “integrity” bill which included provisions on voter ID.
One unintended consequence of Roberts’ bill was a consultation period, which brought a series of submissions poking holes in the rationale for such laws.
University of Sydney constitutional law expert Anne Twomey raised concerns about the impact on minorities, and questioned whether there was real evidence of voter fraud.
“In my experience, there is significant public concern about the integrity of elections due to the partisan use of public money to make grants in marginal and targeted seats as a means of influencing the outcome of elections,” she said.
“If the Parliament is concerned about maintaining public confidence in the integrity of elections, this is where it should be directing its attention.”
But while Roberts’ bit of culture warring on voter fraud probably won’t go anywhere, One Nation might get what it wants. Given Labor and the Greens’ opposition, the government needs support from three crossbench senators. The Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff is reportedly supportive in principle. And with Roberts’ and Pauline Hanson’s votes likely, the next election could look a bit different.
Firstly, it is important to realise that Voter Fraud in the minds of persons such as Roberts or Hanson or McGrath actually means, votes that weren’t cast for me. The appearance of this legislation is a clear indication of the pessimistic outlook the LNP have of their chances at the next election – hence their concern about voter fraud, that is, people voting for the opposition.
The next election might be decided by a handful of votes in a handful of seats. Clearly, culture wars aside, the LNP believes their voters are more likely to be able to easily provide ID than ALP voters. Hence, any measure which might disenfranchise ALP voters – now matter how minimally, is to be grasped at. This, of course, is the real voter fraud.
Nailed it, Griselda.
Bang-on, both of you.
Don’t always agree with you GL, but on this I’m in lock step.
If leaders are leaders ours is a fraud
“He’s a fan of replacing compulsory voting with optional voting. And he’s been the biggest pusher of the proposed bill. ”
That’s the real objective. For as long as there is compulsory voting, the imposition of voter ID laws would be an annoyance for all voters with little effect on actual voting. This move only makes sense as a first step to ending complusory voting. With that done the Coaltion can move into widespread big-scale voter marginalisation, exclusion and intimidation. It would presumably also nobble the AEC so it could also benefit from gerrymandering and similar tactics; there have been signs that’s also on the cards.
Indeed, and then we’ll have the good ole boys in their utes rocking up to “deter” certain types from voting.
Another lie. Voting is NOT compulsory only participation is. All one has to do is turn up and vote informal ie participate but NOT vote. Get it right folks instead of believing the LNP BS.
Be careful. In the US they use voting machines which means that if one attends a booth there is no option but to vote. ie no informal votes. It is compulsory for all those who attend a booth to vote. Extrapolate this out in terms of freedom etc.
There is nobody seriously suggesting voting machines here, that’s a total furphy.But it would make absolutely no difference to freedom here anyway. You would be just as free as before not to comply with the law. All that would change is the chance of being caught. What sort of creep stands up for freedom by hiding their defiance so it costs them nothing? Surely anyone who wants to defy the compulsory voting law in the cause of ‘freedom’ should be ready to take the consequences? How scary is a $50 fine when your ‘freedom’ is at stake?
Singo used to claim that he’d not voted since the 80s and regularly just paid the fine.
Al Gore might beg to differ on the informal vote. What about the “hanging chads”?
Gore lost because of Ralph Nader taking crucial votes on the Left – which does exist in the USA, just not as we know it, Jim.
Bubba only beat Shrub snr in 1992 because Ross Perot did the same on the nutcase right.
Pity that St Bob didn’t learn that lesson in 2019.
You are wrong. The legislation is explicit, there is no ambiguity, voting is compulsory.
The belief that just getting your name crossed off and collecting your ballot paper is sufficient is a myth. Read the legislation. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: “It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election”. Just because deliberately spoiling your ballot is not likely to be investigated and detected does not make it legal. Not being caught after committing an offence does not equal being compliant.
If you cannot understand the simple plain language of the legislation, or the equally clear AEC explanation on its website, and still think voting is not compulsory, at the next election please go your polling station, collect a ballot paper and tell the voting officials you have now complied with the law, you are not voting, and then discard the uncompleted ballot. See what happens.
much less confrontational, simply put an X in each box and place in the ballot box
But that’s missing the point. Pretending to vote does nothing to clear up the point being argued. If Maroochy and all the others who insist all the time that there is no compulsory really believe what they say they should test it by following their recipe for complicance openly, instead of sneaking by. Surely if thjey are right about the legality of not actually voting they have no need to hide if they do it? How would it be confrontational to not actually vote openly, witnessed by the officials at polling station, if it is legal? What could possibly go wrong?
Rat ship.
You sound like a politician. What the law may say and what happens are two different tthings. Reality is – It is not compulsory to vote as I have witnessed many hundreds of people who have not voted nor been questioned or fined over the years. Not to mention people who have just walked out with their ballot papers. Yes they participate by turning up, collecting their ballot paper but DO NOT VOTE FORMALLY.
Then the pedantic say an informal vote is a vote. Like not talking on my mobile phone when I was driving because I was listening.
I reckon voting informally is still voting.
According to the AEC:
“Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to determine whether a person has completed their ballot paper prior to placing it in the ballot box. It is therefore not possible to determine whether all electors have met their legislated duty to vote. It is, however, possible to determine that an elector has attended a polling place or mobile polling team (or applied for a postal vote, pre-poll vote or absent vote) and been issued with a ballot paper.”
The phrase “completed their ballot” seems to me to imply that is should be properly completed to meet the “legislated duty to vote”. If the ballot paper put in the box does not indicate in the required way who the voter is voting for it is perverse and nonsensical to say a vote has been cast. But I agree the distinction between formal and informal, and the true status of the so-called informal under the legislation, might be clearer.
Some people ‘donkey vote’ out of sheer obligation, negativity or apathy; probably all three. Ah yes, and stupidity. It’s neither an ‘informal’ nor ‘illegal’ vote as such. I’d argue that writing Far Cue on the ballot paper is somehow an indication of preference, at least equal to donkey voting, or failing to fill in all the boxes, or whatever, but only the donkey vote is ‘legal’ and able to influence a tight result in an electorate, because of the preferential system.
That may be the intent of the legislation, but the fact is that nobody who simply chooses not to mark their paper in the voting booth is going to be caught. It’s a law that can’t be enforced. However the psychological effects of it is that when people go into that booth they do, as a general rule, vote.
Furthermore you can do what you like with your voting ballot as long as the vote is clear. You can write whatever slogan or message across it you want. It doesn’t invalidate the vote.
Quite correct – as long as the voter’s intent is clear it will be deemed formal – and it is well worth reminding people who want to get their personal concerns out that the scrutineers note the comments.
I don’t know about now but up to 30yrs ago, after the dust had settled and all disputed returns settled, the AEC would publish detailed analyses of the formal & informal votes including the comments which were available to the parties for a not insubstantial fee.
As in all matters, there is the law and there is reality. It is definitely the law that you must vote. As a scrutineer, I can tell you there are many lawbreakers. More important than pedantics is to rid ourselves of this bunch of real law and convention breakers
Correct, attendance at a voting station is compulsory for an eligible citizen of the C of A. The rest is up to an individual.
You are wrong. The legislation is explicit, there is no ambiguity, voting is compulsory.
The belief that just getting your name crossed off and collecting your ballot paper is sufficient is a myth. Read the legislation. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: “It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election”.
Just because deliberately spoiling your ballot is not likely to be investigated and detected does not make it legal. Not being caught after committing an offence does not equal being compliant. If you cannot understand the simple plain language of the legislation, or the equally clear AEC explanation on its website, and still think voting is not compulsory, at the next election please go your polling station, collect a ballot paper and tell the voting officials you have now complied with the law, you are not voting, and then discard the uncompleted ballot. See what happens.
Fortunately we have secret voting, known throughout the psepholgical community as “the Auatralian ballot”.
Long live the Alby Langer Option – it is formal as long as the intention is clear even if not strictly conforming to the instructions.
This move only makes sense as a first step to ending complusory voting.
Absolutey. Are they going to penalise electorally-enrolled people who fail to vote because they don’t have ID? Nah, course not. Non-penalisation means non-compulsion. And before you can say Christian Porter it’ll be formalised through legislation. It’ll be called ‘freedom to vote’ (true Orwellspeak). And voilà!
The are just a regional franchise of the U.S. Republican party – The tried and true strategies/tactics for voter suppression, disenfranchising the poor, gerrymandering and stacking the judiciary is all provided by the franchisor. Also, if McGrath is involved in anything, out of an abundance of caution it is prudent to be opposed to whatever it is that he is pushing. Once you get to the bottom of what is going down, you can throw caution to the wind.
To move to the next step in the Trump list of voting fraud . Polling day will be inconveniently mid-week, you must register to vote, queues will be long in poor or non-Trump areas, postal votes will be second class votes and counting is optional,if the number of postal votes favours the opponent the votes are fraudulent.
In the event of the public disagreeing with your right to rule call for the faithful to invade the seat of government. Never accept even the most incontestable evidence that you lost the election.The most important action at your disposal is to continue to lie and ignore convention .
I hope this information is of some help in your re election campaign .
It’s beggar belief what these people are willing to do this country for the sake of a little bit of power. It’s so laughable that Tudge was out last week saying young people don’t believe in democracy whilst down the hall, the same buffoons are eroding it.
Utter scum.
Agreed. They are foolish if they really believe young people don’t believe in democracy. All the young people I know and encounter and extremely concerned about democracy!
Providing ID at polling places won’t stop multiple voting, since once you are done at one polling place you can go to another and do the same thing.
The thing that would stop multiple voting would be to have the electoral roll electronically so when a person is marked off it is updated at all other polling places.
But even that is not necessary – checking the electoral rolls for each polling place will reveal people who voted twice, Only if the number of double voters is more than the margin of victory in an electorate would it be a problem.
I’m staggered that in today’s technological world our Elections on all paper and pencil
The staff at a polling booth would be better served at checking off names on a computer, and it should eliminate any “double” voting.
Electronic systems, as with voting ‘machines’ are far more open to fraud than the old pencil on paper methods.
This smacks of what the now GQP in the USA is actively undertaking across the pond in the Land of the Far from Free and Home of the Not Very Brave.
It is an attack on universal suffrage with voter suppression.
All that is needed is some further inaction by the AEC, as in the AEC purple signs in Mandarin at the last election, and the Lying Nasty Party will be well down the track of the GQP in the USA!
The dream of the hard right with exSenator Nick Minchin is the abolition of compulsory voting.
FPtP would be their ultimate wet-dream.