The proposed voting prohibition on prisoners serving a sentence of one year or longer is inconsistent with international and domestic human rights standards, the Queensland Law Society has advocated in a recent submission.
The Society has made a submission into the Electoral Laws (Restoring Electoral Fairness) Amendment Bill 2025 being considered by the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee.
The QLS response was compiled with input from the Human Rights and Public Law Committee and Criminal Law Committee.
QLS President Peter Jolly stated in the submission that Society feedback was limited to the provisions in the Bill amending the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) (Electoral Act) to prohibit people serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention of one year or longer from voting in State elections, referendums and local government elections.
“In respect of these amendments, it is our view the Bill’s stated objectives, to enhance civic responsibility and prevent elections from being influenced by those who disregard the rule of law, are fundamentally flawed and unsupported by evidence,” the President said.
“We note there is no evidence of a widespread call by the community for such amendments.
“In our submission, there has been no material change of circumstances since the passage of the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 which amended the Electoral Act so that only people serving a sentence of three years or longer are disqualified from voting.”
He stated that QLS did not support the proposed changes to prisoners’ voting rights on two bases.
“First, there is little evidence that the amendment is required in Queensland and therefore will not achieve the stated policy objectives,” he said.
“Second, the amendment would lead to the abrogation of human rights without adequate justification. We note these reservations are not only held by us but have also been expressed by other key stakeholders who have submitted responses to this inquiry.
“The High Court’s decision in Roach v Electoral Commission (2007) 233 CLR 162 (Roach) provides critical guidance on establishing a non-arbitrary threshold for prisoner disenfranchisement, grounding such restrictions in the seriousness of offending and individual culpability.
“The Court determined that while a blanket ban on prisoner voting is unconstitutional, a three-year imprisonment threshold is a reasonable measure because it serves as a reliable proxy for what constitutes a serious crime.
“Offending at this level distinguishes individuals whose conduct is grave enough to warrant a ‘penalty enhancement’, the symbolic removal of the right to vote, in addition to incarceration. The Roach case rests on the principle that the removal of voting rights must be a proportionate consequence of punishment for serious criminal offending rather than an automatic result of any term of imprisonment.”
The submission goes to on say that when evaluating the proposed shift to a one-year threshold, the Committee must carefully balance the importance and achievability of the stated policy objectives against the profound impact on the fundamental rights of affected people.
“This consideration demands a thorough consideration of the core objectives of the justice system, alongside established case law and the fundamental legal principle that the right to vote is the cornerstone of democratic legitimacy,” he said.
“Depriving prisoners serving a sentence of at least one year of the right to vote is also inconsistent with the rehabilitative aim of imprisonment. To this end, we note one of the overarching purposes of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) is crime prevention through the humane treatment, supervision and rehabilitation of offenders.
“Imprisonment is about loss of liberty, not the arbitrary forfeiture of fundamental civic rights. These include the right to life, to be treated with dignity, the right to legal representation, a fair trial, recognition and equality before the law and taking part in public life.
“Unless there are substantive reasons that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, imprisonment should not remove the right to vote. The proposed prohibition on voting for prisoners serving a sentence of one year or longer is inconsistent with both international and domestic human rights standards.”
The committee is due to table its report on 6 February 2026.
Share this article