How damaging to democracy are the proposals, currently before federal parliament, for changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act? The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 seeks, among other things, to close the roll for new enrolments at 8pm on the day the writs are issued and three days later for those who need to update their address details.

Currently voters have a week to enrol or change their address and many are only galvanised into action by the calling of an election. Judging from recent elections, to close the roll when an election is announced will disenfranchise about 80,000 new voters and impact particularly on young people. The reduction in time for enrolled voters to change their address details will create difficulties for at least a further 200,000 voters.

Australian electoral officials have long taken pride in both the comprehensiveness and the accuracy of the Commonwealth roll. Since 1996 the Howard government has prioritised 'electoral integrity' over comprehensiveness, calling for evidentiary requirements for enrolment and the early closing of the roll.

The reason given for closing the roll so early is to ensure no one gets away with enrolling at the wrong address in the rush after the calling of the election. There have been anecdotes but little evidence of party activists enrolling in marginal seats for the duration of an election. In response to concerns of government MPs, the AEC undertook intensive checks of all enrolment changes in South Australia made in the week after the issuing of the writs. Out of just over a million enrolled voters, two were found who had moved to a new address during the close of roll period and then subsequently back to an old address. Further investigation of these two cases, however, did not reveal any evidence of fraud.

In 2001, 83,000 first-time voters enrolled in the week between the issuing of the writs and the closing of the roll. Other democracies are trying to increase the electoral participation of young people, with Canada allowing them to enrol on polling day and New Zealand giving them until the day before the election. The current Australian Bill will close the electoral roll for new voters far earlier than elsewhere and at least 33 days (almost five weeks) before polling day.

Both the current and previous Special Ministers of State, Gary Nairn and Senator Eric Abetz, have claimed that criticism of early closing of the roll is mere grandstanding, because Labor state governments also do it. This is a classic tu quoque argument, but is it true?

Nairn (in the Canberra Times, 21 February) cites the early closure of the roll in NSW, Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory. However NSW, Victoria and the ACT all have fixed-term elections, so there is plenty of notice of the approach of an election. Nairn may be on safer ground with the Northern Territory, where elections may be called at any time in the fourth year.

In a speech last year on electoral reform, Senator Abetz said no one claims there is a democratic deficit in Tasmania or New South Wales, despite their closing the rolls the day the writs are issued. As noted, NSW has fixed-term elections so does not have a democratic problem. In Tasmania the Electoral Act (s. 63) requires a minimum gap of five days between the proclamation dissolving parliament and the issuing of writs, so voters have warning to get onto the roll. It was six days this year. At the federal level there is a Constitutional maximum but no minimum period between the calling of an election and the issuing of writs.

It is the combination of early closing of the roll and lack of fixed terms at the federal level that creates the potential damage to democracy. Abetz and Nairn say the Liberal Party has no partisan interest in preventing young people voting, because the 2004 Australian Election Study showed 41 per cent of young people voting Liberal and only 32 per cent Labor. What they fail to mention is the big jump indicated by the AES in the percentage of young people voting Green - 17 per cent.

In 2004 federal electorates had an average enrolment of 87,000 voters and an average turnout of around 95 per cent. Compulsory voting is an effective hedge against the kinds of fraud that can affect electoral outcomes when relatively small numbers of voters are involved. Surprisingly, a number of senior members of the government are concerned about fraud but in favour of abolishing compulsory voting.

Australia was once a pioneering democracy and is still a model for arms-length and non-partisan electoral administration. The changes proposed under the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill represent a step backwards for democracy in more ways than one.