Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

With no disrespect to the Minister of State, I am disappointed not only that the Minister has left the Chamber but also that we do not have present a Minister of State from the Department that is handling this legislation. I question how, at a political level, the comments I propose to make will feed into the process. I very much welcome the Bill and the establishment of a permanent electoral commission, which was a long time coming. I acknowledge the very hard work done on this Bill, but I want to focus on a few key areas that I believe need to be strengthened. There are a number of missed opportunities in this Bill, in respect of which I propose to bring forward amendments to strengthen it. At this stage, I will not be joining in the almost chorus of welcome for the Bill by different groups and parties because there are key and important gaps in it that need to be addressed.

I will start with voter education.

I will talk in a moment about why it is important. In the 132 pages of the Bill, voter education is only mentioned twice and the substantive section to deal with the issue, section 66, which deals with the educational functions of the commission, could not be weaker. There are only three lines in that section dealing with the issue in the 132-page Bill. That does not mean that good work on voter education will not be done. I accept that. However, it does mean that there is nothing in the legislation to give me, as a legislator, confidence that great work will be done on voter education. It could be done and the Bill will not stop it happening but there is certainly not enough detail in the legislation to give us any assurance that it will be done.

A considerable amount of work needs to be done in the area of voter education. The provisions of the Bill should be fleshed out to ensure that voter education is a core and central function of the electoral commission. I want the electoral commission to roll-out ongoing and thorough voter education initiatives aimed at mobilising citizens, increasing participation and educating voters on how the system works so they can maximise their electoral choices. That is important. We cannot tolerate a situation in a democracy where some voters understand how to maximise the use of their votes and others do not. That is exactly the situation we have at the moment. Some voters understand the proportional representation, single transferable vote system and how to use their votes to their maximum influence while others do not. The commission should be running outreach events and producing materials in multiple languages. It should be proactively engaging with communities that feel excluded from politics and political discussions.

In New Zealand, for example, the electoral commission has youth advocates who drive up voter registration levels among young people. They reach out specifically to people who are homeless. They have an accessible social media page and easy-to-follow videos. They have put in measures to enable deaf people and people who are hard of hearing to use sign language when voting. They have also facilitated people with visual impairments to vote, including through the use of telephone dictation voting services. That has all been done in New Zealand. Early voting has also been allowed to increase voter turnout. There is nothing in this Bill to suggest that serious work is going to be done in any of these areas. The electoral commission should be empowered to do that work. Perhaps that will happen but we simply do not know that on the basis of this Bill.

Why is voter education important in terms of our democracy? Almost every Deputy in the Dáil is aware of this issue because we have all spent time at election counts and have seen what happens when ballot boxes are opened. We are all aware that areas with more economic deprivation have lower voter turnouts. In areas with more economic deprivation and reduced literacy levels, there are a higher number of spoiled votes and more people who do not necessarily know that the best way for them to maximise their influence through the electoral system is to vote down the ballot paper. Voters do not need to vote all the way down the paper if they do want to but they should use their preferences. We know the situation. We know there is not an equal level of participation or an equal understanding of our electoral system. To ensure we avoid a situation whereby all voters are equal but some are more equal than other, we should be driving home voter education. That alone will not address all these issues but it is important, if we believe in our democracy, which we do, that we address this inequality through strong voter education. That does not come across as a strong intention of this Bill. It does not give us the sense that the political system is going to do everything it can to increase participation and voter education through this Bill. That is important.

I appreciate that some people may fear the consequences of voter education and might ask will outcomes be affected if more marginalised communities are more activated. However, the consequences of not doing this will be more costly for the political establishment in the long run. The view is cynical and self-defeating. We should all be very supportive of a much more engaged and participative electorate because it is better for everyone.

We should not only be looking at how the Bill addresses voter education but we should also be considering how it addresses increasing voter participation. My colleague, Deputy Cairns, has already addressed some of those points, including improving participation from under-represented groups, such as young people, migrants, Travellers, marginalised communities, people who are homeless and people who are fleeing domestic violence. We should also be looking at how this Bill treats civil society organisations.

This Bill is a missed opportunity for political reform. The first citizens' assembly in 2013 and 2014, the Convention on the Constitution, made a number of recommendations for political reform, many of which have been overlooked or largely ignored in this Bill. The convention recommended that the voting age be reduced to 16. It is important to make the point that if the voting age is reduced to 16, that does not mean that every 16-year-old will get to vote. It means that in general elections, which happen every five years, one fifth of people, as they turn 16, will be eligible to vote. Some people will cast their first vote when they are 17. One fifth will cast their first vote when they are 18, another one fifth when they are 19 and another one fifth when they are 20. Even if the voting age were reduced to 16, some people would not be able to vote in a general election for the first time until they are 20. Under the current system, some people's first opportunity to vote in a general election is at the age of 22. That is far too late in terms of giving younger people full participation in the electoral process.

Another recommendation of the Convention on the Constitution was for all constituencies to comprise five seats or more. That is ignored in the Bill. It is an important stipulation if we are serious about improving diversity and making sure this Dáil is more diverse and representative of the population as a whole. This Dáil does not look like, and is not properly representative of, the Irish population. That is not the fault of anyone who has been elected to the Dáil but we need to make sure the structures enable more diversity and allow people from under-represented backgrounds to come through.

The Convention on the Constitution also recommended removing the alphabetical order of candidates on the ballot paper. There is no reason why people who are higher up the alphabet should have been over-represented in the Dáil historically. That does not make sense. The convention also recommended increasing polling hours and extending elections so they happen over a number of days. Those extensions should not be introduced only to allow for public health measures but should happen to increase participation. We must recognise that some people in shift work and lower paid jobs have much less flexibility to get out and vote. More people in lower paid and minimum wage jobs work on Saturdays, which is an issue if an election happens on a Saturday. Spreading an election over a few days would make it easier for shift workers and people in those kinds of jobs to vote. This Bill copperfastens the status quoand misses an opportunity in the areas I have outlined.

I will turn to voter registration. Section 82(e), which deals with the facilitation of homeless people with no fixed address, is a welcome measure but the criteria concerned are too tight. The section states that "an elector registered in a registration area in accordance with this subsection shall renew his or her registration annually". That is putting an obligation on a homeless person without a fixed address that is not being put on other members of the electorate. It is discriminatory to do that to people who are without a fixed address but it also puts a particular additional burden on people who often have a multitude of challenges. They may well have some mental health or addiction challenges. They also face the challenge of wondering where they will sleep or how secure their accommodation will be, and everything that goes with homelessness. Putting an additional burden on them and requiring that they renew their registration annually is unfair. In practical terms, it will not be doable for people who have so much going on in their lives. I ask for that section to be looked at.

Section 91, which deals with anonymous electors, is very welcome, especially for the provision it offers to people fleeing domestic violence or other threats to their personal safety. It needs to be considered further because I would have some concern that the bar of eligibility in that regard may be too high. We will bring amendments to deal with that on Committee Stage.

It is very important in any healthy democracy to have strong NGOs and civil society organisations. They can act as a counterbalance to strong corporate and business interests. In housing, for example, there is constant lobbying from the property industry and an insufficiently resourced counterbalance from civil society organisations. The concerns those organisations and NGOs have raised about the definition of political purpose and the impact it is having on their work must be addressed. It is a pity that the recommendation on this issue from the committee's pre-legislative report was not taken up. I ask that this be looked at.

Comments have been made about the wider matter of democracy. We should be very proud that we are one of very few countries in the world that have had 100 years of continuous universal suffrage. There are very few countries in the world which can say that. However, we should be in no way complacent about it. Democracy takes effort and work and that is why this Bill is very important, because it seeks to strengthen our democracy and the processes around it. That means we need to do everything we can to ensure maximum participation and voter education and so everybody in this country can participate as much as possible in the democratic process. Currently, not everybody understands how it works. Some people understand it better than others and some communities participate more or are represented more. That is a fundamental challenge we need to address because we want to strengthen and improve democracy and make sure everybody is participating equally. Democracies can go forward or backwards. When they are going forward, people take the view that they will never go backwards. It can happen, however. That is why it is important that we strengthen this Bill and get it right.

See this speech in context