Electoral (Electronically Assisted Voting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2014
29/10/2014
A copy of the Bill can be viewed here.
Introduction and First Reading
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act 1985 and to make related amendments to the City of Adelaide Act 1998, the Juries Act 1927, the Local Government Act 1999 and the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999. Read a first time.
Second Reading
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I introduce this bill this evening on behalf of Dignity for Disability and in doing so begin to fulfil an election promise that we made in March during the state election campaign, in fact on the eve of polling day. One feature of our electoral reform policy, as members may be aware, is moving the date of the election from Mad March, which was the subject of a bill that I have already introduced into this place. That bill seeks to move our fixed term state elections to October of every four years and in so doing ensure that the disruption of Adelaide Cup Day, music festivals, art festivals and the Clipsal 500 car race do not distract from the important decisions that voters must make and focus on about who gets to run the state. However, that is an issue for another time.
In introducing this bill, I would like to firstly thank the members of the public, particularly those from the disability and youth sectors, for attending a public consultation event that I held in early October at the Disability Information and Resource Centre, more commonly known as DIRC. This group included people from the Deaf community, the blind and vision-impaired community, the intellectual disability community and, of course, from the youth sectors.
I really appreciated the frank and fulsome discussion on that afternoon, one that continues to go on via social media, and the range of views that people represented. I would also like to thank in particular Ms Michele Thredgold, a former Dignity for Disability candidate who is herself blind, and also the Blind Citizens Council. The council and Ms Thredgold alerted Dignity for Disability and my office to the antiquated condition in our state Electoral Act which requires voters to mark the ballot paper.
This requirement has had the, I assume unintended, consequence of ensuring that blind and/or vision-impaired voters cannot cast a private or secret vote. Instead, they must ask someone to mark the ballot paper on their behalf. This does not guarantee, in any way, a confidential vote but, more importantly, it does not guarantee an accurate vote because if a voter is vision-impaired to the extent that they cannot see the ballot paper, it is impossible to see whether the person assisting them has marked it in the correct place or in the correct order.
In federal elections, as the Commonwealth Electoral Act does not have this clause, people are able to vote using electronic methods such as telephone voting because there is no specified need to mark the ballot paper with a pencil. So the first feature I would like to mention about this bill is the removal of the requirement to mark a ballot paper as the primary or sole means of casting a vote. This is an important development for electors who are blind or vision-impaired as it will provide them with independence, confidentiality and accuracy as they cast their ballot, a privilege that many of the rest of us already enjoy.
They will be able to vote over the phone or by other accessible electronic means. We have purposely left this up to interpretation due to the rate at which technology advances nowadays. It is ridiculous that in 2014 and beyond, with the ever-growing level of technology that many of us already have at hand, that we do not have this in place already. In 2014 we are fast running out of excuses. Indeed, I would argue that we have already run out of excuses not to use these methods to the advantage of better accessible elections.
A second feature of my bill is that which will require that all polling booths are accessible to those who use mobility aids or have other mobility differences or restrictions by the next election in 2018. Dignity for Disability believes that it is ridiculous, once again, in this day and age, that some voters with physical and/or sensory disabilities are still not able to vote in their local polling booths. At this year’s state election I understand that only one-third of polling booths were accessible, meaning many people had to vote by postal ballot (not of their own choosing) or at an accessible pre‑poll centre before the election day. Access to democracy in its various forms should be for everyone, not just a select few.
Another effect of my bill will be to ensure that people do not have to vote inside a polling booth if there is any reason that a disability or other condition makes it impracticable or unreasonable to expect them to do so. Perhaps they are unable to leave the car, use a mobility device or some other matter. We believe that they should be able to vote outside of the polling booth with the approval of electoral staff in order to ensure an improved accessibility to voting on polling day for people with disabilities.
Another feature of this bill would be to enshrine disability-related community education officers employed at the Electoral Commission. Anecdotal evidence to my office suggests that enrolment rates of people with disabilities are low, and particularly low when it comes to people with intellectual disabilities. In fact, it seems clear to me, from anecdotal evidence I have from my continued conversations with the community, that many people with intellectual disabilities are not so much as enrolled to vote. This often seems to be not because they do not have the capacity or the interest to enrol but because the person who might otherwise support them to do so believes that they are incapable of doing so and therefore does not provide or offer that support. This is yet again a case of people with disabilities being burdened by the low expectations placed upon us by others and it is time we cleansed our society of these.
Dignity for Disability wants to see research conducted in this area, particularly to see exactly where the level of enrolment for people with disabilities is when it comes to voting. The creation of a community education officer in disability who can educate and inform people with a disability on their rights and responsibilities in the electoral process as well as promote better engagement with the political process is a sure-fire way to do this.
Members have probably noted, with some level of interest, that the bill also seeks to ban the use of corflute electoral advertising on public land and property throughout South Australia. This form of advertising during elections, with large plastic posters, is an environmental disaster that does little more than distract drivers. They are also expensive and therefore give larger parties the campaign advantage. Election posters also say nothing about the policies or intentions of the person displayed on them. Dignity for Disability decided to forgo campaign corflute advertising for our candidates during the state election and we are calling for a ban on the practice going forward, particularly because it is unfair for many people with physical disabilities who are unable to place a corflute at least two metres above the ground. So, in effect, it is, I hope inadvertently, discriminatory.
We also believe there is no space for this archaic form of advertising in modern-day elections, where we should all be discussing our policies, initiatives and intentions with electors via face-to-face forums, online and by other mediums. We certainly believe that if you are genuinely getting out there and engaging with the community, listening to the community and letting the community know about your intentions then you probably do not need pictures of your face everywhere because people will recognise you through your actions. I certainly believe in the old adage that actions speak louder than words and certainly louder than corflutes.
The bill also seeks to better engage young people in our democracy, both in state and local government elections. The bill does this by instating non-compulsory voting for 16 and 17 year old South Australians. Giving young people the opportunity to vote before they turn 18 hopefully would encourage engagement with the political process and the community. We want to develop our politically-minded young people and also make sure that their issues are given the weight they deserve when raised with politicians. We also want to ensure that young people understand the avenues that are available to them to raise issues with members of parliament and other members of the community and to ensure that those pathways are accessible to them.
I understand that other people before me in this place have attempted to amend the voting age to enable 16 and 17 years olds to vote and I certainly believe it has been a long-time policy of organisations like the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia (YACSA), and for very good reason, Mr President. We ought to remember that 16 and 17 year olds are often able to leave home, they are often in the workforce, they can drive cars, they are occasionally parents and they are involved in the same world in which adults live. They are our future and they are our present and we need to treat them as such. The decisions made in this parliament have an impact on their lives and so they should be given the option of voting if they feel they are ready to do so and they choose to do so.
The final feature of this bill is the set-up of what is called the disability promotion fund, which is based on an initiative that exists in the UK but, unfortunately, has yet to be seen anywhere in Australia. As members may have gathered, if they have read through the bill, the purpose of this promotion fund, to be held by the Electoral Commissioner, is to provide funds to support candidates with disabilities with the additional barriers we can often face when seeking candidacy or election.
It is no secret, I would hope, to anyone in this parliament that people with disabilities are generally underrepresented in positions of power, or so-called positions of power, and yet, one in every five of us—that is, 20 per cent of the population—is a person with a disability and I believe one in every three is affected by disability because they care for someone with a disability.
Again, it is ridiculous and offensive that, in this day and age, we people with disabilities who are taxpayers and who contribute to the community often on the same basis as any other member, if not more, are still expected to just forgo the chance to have our say in society because of the barriers that other people put forward to us. As I said earlier, the main barrier that we people with disabilities face in today’s society is the perception that others have of us, the things that people tell us we are not able to do and the chances that we are not given.
The community may not be aware of this, but the expenses associated with running for parliament when you have a disability in particular are significant. It may be that you have special needs relating to transport or that you require, for example, an Auslan interpreter or a sign language interpreter to be able to communicate with your potential electorate. We certainly believe that it is time that the parliament and governments, including local government, became more accountable and, to do that, we need to give people with disabilities a genuine chance to have a voice. That is what we intend to do by seeking to establish the disability promotion fund.
Having now gone over the main objectives of my bill in some detail, I would like to further touch on some points. I did mention this briefly earlier, but I will just mention it again so that we are clear. One thing that arose in the roundtable discussions that I have had on this bill so far were some mixed feelings, mixed views, about the fact that the definition of accessible information to be distributed during elections in particular is quite broad.
We have done that for several reasons, mostly because, as technology advances, the methods are going to change, so we think that, rather than legislating for a form of accessible technology that will probably be quickly outdated, we will leave that open, so that whatever is the best practice of the day can be used.
However, we are considering some amendments to this to do with technologies or other communication methods that are very unlikely to change any time soon, particularly to do with the provisions to require the Electoral Commissioner to distribute information that is accessible to the Deaf/signing community via the use of captioning and Auslan interpretation videos. This is something we are certainly considering.
It is my expectation at this stage that, due to the current make-up of the parliament, this bill will probably be deferred to a committee, so that is something we will consider later and that we continue to consider, but I just wanted to assure the Deaf community that that is certainly something that is very much on our radar and something that we intend to move forward with. But, for other reasons, particularly to do with access to technology, we have left the definition very broad to enable it to keep up with the times.
Often when we think about electoral reform, it is important to think outside the square, outside the status quo and, for many people with disabilities, this is something that is not very hard to do, because we have lived outside the square for so long. We have been forced to live on the perimeter of society and to accept the crumbs of acceptance and empowerment that come our way, and it is ridiculous that in 2014, this situation continues.
It is absurd that in 2014 my role as a member of parliament with a disability is still a novelty to many people in this place, and still to some in the general community. Therefore we must empower people with disabilities, not by forcing us to take up positions of public policy or other positions but by giving us equal choice and access to the positions that most empower us and the positions that most enable us to have our say in society. I hope this bill will go some way to create that situation for us all.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.
