Michael McCarthy (Labour)

Regarding the amendment tabled by Senator Bannon, we had a very good debate on electronic voting in this House last week. However, the Minister's period of reply was just 15 minutes, and if he were here for 15 hours he might not have answered all the questions put to him.

The famous 41 questions came from the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government, and were put to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, prior to his launch of the electronic voting plans. I did not attend the committee this week because I have been in the House, but I do not think those questions have yet been answered. Regarding the pilot areas where electronic voting took place in the general election, it is too simple to say that since it worked well on that occasion, we should now proceed with it. While pilot projects took place in a number of constituencies, the vast majority continued to use the manual system. The nature of politics is that one campaigns in one's constituency and looks at how matters are proceeding there. With electronic voting, there was not so much emphasis on these individual areas. Electronic voting covered the results, but not the finer details.

There remains a number of unanswered questions. We do not want a situation such as occurred in the United States in the last presidential election when the candidate with the most votes was not deemed elected. The Florida Governor, Jeb Bush, brother of the now infamous victor in the presidential campaign, might well qualify for a seat on the new independent board which the Minister is introducing to review the accuracy of the electronic system. Can the Minister of State say who will be on the board, from where will they be drawn and how many members there will be? I assume they will have some experience in this area.

Another issue raised last week was that of the Nedap machines. If people have shares in the company that produces them, that could raise conflicts of interests. For example, in the 1996 and 2002 Senate elections in the United States, a Senator was returned successfully on both occasions in one area. It then transpired that the Senator had shares in the company which counted his votes. There was no suggestion of impropriety but that was a major conflict of interests. For the sake of transparency we deserve to know if such an issue might arise with the Nedap machines.

Regarding the software to be used, I have yet to be convinced that it is capable of counting votes on proportional representation using the single transferable vote. We are the only country in Europe using multi-seat constituencies and using proportional representation based on the single transferable vote. In terms of counting votes and distributing surpluses, it is a complicated system which even politicians may not fully understand. Can the software handle it? We must be convinced that the distribution of surpluses can be done accurately. Can we be assured that votes will be transferred?

Regarding developments this week, a level of common sense has prevailed in this House. It must be perplexing for the Government when everyone says they have no disagreement in principle with electronic voting. I have no disagreement either. Electronic voting is a good thing if we are guaranteed that our votes will be cast and counted.

A major opportunity was missed in the context of the U-turn this week when it became clear that there was no verifiable audit trail. Such a trail would guarantee that my vote was cast and counted. A number of computer experts have given their opinions on this matter. I would not go to an ATM to withdraw cash without getting a receipt. I become very suspicious when I cannot get a receipt, though this can happen if the ATM does not match the bank which issued the card. I always check statements to see if transactions have been accurately recorded. With electronic voting, there is no similar checking method. One cannot put a price on democracy, for which many people have paid with their life's blood. We owe it to democracy to ensure there is a checking method.