In enacting the first voter ID law in Australia, the Newman government conducted an experiment with electoral democracy. Its conservative counterparts in Canberra now want to adopt the same law for national elections. Yet the Palaszczuk government wants to repeal it in a bill scheduled for early May. In this game of push-me, pull-you, who is right?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Many Queenslanders like the idea of mandating ID on election day. They can't give evidence for it, but it feels right. Trust in elections is vital and voting is an important, if not solemn, responsibility. Many of us carry drivers' licences or a Medicare card. So why not demand that of everyone else at the polls? The LNP believes it is onto a winner in the court of public opinion.
As Stephen Keim SC of the Bar Association reminded the parliament, the Hawke government wanted an Australia Card, ostensibly to combat tax avoidance. Opinion polls initially showed Australians overwhelmingly agreed. But once people understood the potential liberty risks of the policy, support evaporated.
Politicians should not lightly tinker with fundamental things like voting. So what lessons did Queensland's 2015 electoral experiment deliver?
We have analysed the voting data. Voter ID impacted most not just on indigenous, but on regional communities generally. About 16,500 people turned up at the polls but had trouble with ID. Most were allowed to submit a ballot in an envelope, after completing paperwork and a signed declaration. None of those, however, were told if their ballot was accepted into the count. A problem, in itself, for trust.
Of the 10 electorates that had the most problems with ID, seven were in the top 10 electorates with most indigenous citizens. It is usually thought that voter ID harms parties of the left, since they appeal to groups likely to have problems with ID or knowing bureaucratic rules: new (young or migrant) electors and poorer, homeless and marginalised communities.
Yet white rural and elderly voters also seem to be disproportionately affected. Not one Brisbane electorate featured in the top 40 electorates affected by voter ID. Yet seats like Warrego, Keppel, Gladstone, Nanango and Burnett were in the top 15.
Voter turnout actually declined by over 1 per cent. It was the lowest since 2004. This was unexpected in a tight contest. It's only a clue, but it is likely a lot of electors thought that 'voter ID' meant what it implied: "No ID, no vote".
Finally there was anecdotal evidence, collected by a Get Up! hotline, that some electors were given differing or misleading information about ID requirements and rights, and whether they had to return home to fetch it. This is no criticism of the electoral commission. Premier Newman called a snap poll, and resources to advertise the new law were not abundant. Even many political journalists thought voter ID meant "no ID, no vote".
The deeper concern is, as the ABC's election guru Antony Green puts it, that voter ID is "an answer trying to find a problem". There is no evidence of systemic electoral fraud in Australia. Let alone of problems on a scale that could upset election results.
Some people appear to vote several times in their own name. Such multiple voting is criminal. But voter ID cannot stop such multiple voting. Only online electoral rolls, connecting each polling place, will help with this.
At most, voter ID might deter voter impersonation, in which someone impersonates another elector who they suspect will not vote. That can be a problem in countries where voter turnout is low, where it is easier to predict who will not turnout. The best deterrent to personation is enforcing compulsory enrolment and elector turnout.
Voter ID is common enough in other countries, but not our cousins. It is not yet the law in Britain and New Zealand. In many European countries, citizens have national ID papers and must produce them routinely. If we want voter ID to apply equally to all, we will have to swallow a spider to catch a fly. For this reason, genuine liberals such as Chris Berg of the IPA think voter ID in Australia is regulatory overkill.
The Queensland model of voter ID is far from the toughest in the world. But the precedent of voter ID, a regulation in search of a rationale, is itself a risk. At a stroke of a pen, future Ministers can restrict the types of ID allowed. A partisan parliament could also rig the ID permitted: student cards okay, but seniors cards not? It could do away with the declaration vote option, by arguing that the ID rule had become well known.
Such tricks have been played by US legislatures, and not just in the south where strict rules impact heaviest on African-American and poorer communities. The Queensland law already discriminates in favour of postal voters, who are not required to photocopy their ID. Few young people postal vote.
It took centuries for the ability to vote, on equal terms, to become a birthright. We take it for granted. Too much so: up to 10 per cent of us are not enrolling or voting, despite the risk of a small fine. Voter ID is a bureaucratic hurdle of dubious need.
Graeme Orr is a professor and Louise Scarce a Pro-Bono Centre Intern, at the University of Queensland law school. Graeme has authored The Law of Politics and Ritual and Rhythm in Electoral Systems.
