I'd have thought a simpler way to get around the problem would be fixed term governments. It works a treat in NSW. Of course the major parties would hate it, as it deprives the incumbents of the ability to finesse the polls and outfox the media.

I agree with you Banjo on compulsory preferential voting. The major parties love it because it eventually means a vote for them. I will always vote for anyone else (the KKK excepted) rather than the major parties.

Thanks Leigh and Banjo for the waffle about "personal responsibility". I enroll, put in my tax returns, pay my bills in etc etc when I absolutely have to (and sometimes not even then). If its my duty to vote (enforceable by fine), then its the government's duty to make it as easy as possible. Making things convenient for governments is usually a way of attacking democracy.

I strongly agree with George Williams comments.

The electoral reforms are not justified and there is no real evidence to support the change.

There is a Electoral Commission report after each election (PDF: http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/pdf/BehindTheScenes.pdf). This is worth reading if one is truely interested in democracy. Where is the evidence that the electoral rolls lack integrity?

According to Liberal and National MPs on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM), the evidence comes from the submissions by the Liberal and National Party and the Festival of Light!

In the JSCEM report (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/report/chapter2.pdf), the AEC commissioner is quoted as suggesting that changing the date would not effect enrolment (section 2.111) and this is used to support the governments view. However if you read the actual Transcript (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J8526.pdf) the commissioner is actually saying that the AEC would embark on a marketing campaign to reduce the effect of the change, said he could not speculate on the result and made no suggestion there was a problem with integrity.

In fact the commissioner said something very interesting: "With the exception of 1983, historically there had been a period of time between the announcement of an election and the issue of writ ... with the average gap in the period from 1940 to 1983 inclusive being 19 days." (JSCEM Transcript 5-Aug-05, p54)

Now, think about what happened in 1983: That was the first federal election where the rolls were closed almost immediately. That was the election where PM Malcolm Frazer lost government.

Ralph and Johnj. With elections each 3 years the vast majority of people to enroll for each election would have 12 months or so to do that. I can only suppose that you believe the State Gov. should open RTA offices on sunday afternoons because it may be more "convienient" for you. Your Local council likewise and hang the expense to taxpayers. Enrolling to vote is a once in a lifetime exercise so tradition has nothing to do with it. Changes in address and other particulars can be done via the mail. There is no major problem.
With the ammount of media attention at a pending election, one would have to be living under a rock, not to be aware.

I also believe more proof of identity should be required to enroll and to vote. we need to provide more identity to open a bank account than to enroll to vote. Surely photo inentity should be a minimum or having to swipe a card would be better when enrolling and to vote.

David, I think the integrity of the rolls should be questioned. The Sheperdson inquiry was uncovering quite a few rorts when it was suspended, and we would be naive to think such rorts only happened in Queensland. This is in spite of what the AEC commisssioner said in his report.

These matters, and compulsory preferential voting are far more important issues to electors than the matters the author of this thread raised.

What a boring article. Does Williams really think it would make a scrap difference to the end result if these thousands of people could vote? They can wait till next time. What is more important is to address our undemocratic system that treats us like criminals when we are enrolled, but do not vote.

Banjo, I work in the public library area. All the library services I have worked in are open 7 days a week. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I believe government services are there to provide a service.

Federal politicians have provided themselves with a billion-dollar palace, hot and cold running staff, transport etc etc. All this in the name of representing their electorates. The PM calls an election at his whim and now we're told that it is "inconvenient" to have the AEC open to accept changes in enrolment. So much for the value placed on democracy.

To those who believe that prisoner's; particularly those serving trifling sentences, who will be effected by the choices made at the elections; should be prohibited from voting, consider this:

It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people [US v Rabinowitz [1950] 339 US 56, 70 (Frankfurter J)].<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=339&invol=56&friend=nytimes>

The right to vote; which in this country is the obligation to vote; is a sacred right in a democratic society. It determines the make-up of the government, which in turn determines the content of law. Does this mean that the Constitution can be altered by the majority of persons in the majority of states, other than those in prison?

Truly frightening.

In addition, the adoption of larger amounts which can be paid surreptitiously, suggests that AUstralia is going down the US path, where lobbyists can legally funnel millions of dollars in order to change laws for their; predominantly corporate; clients, in blatant disregard of the democratic process. Fortunately, no politician in Australia would be tempted to misuse their position to take advantage of such slush money?

Inshallah

2 bob