Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank the member for Casey for his presentation of the 2013 federal election report and for his leadership of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the deputy chair, the member for Bruce. I acknowledge the terrific contribution that has been made by the member for Moore to the vital work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

Since the early 1980s the committee has provided a largely bipartisan system for evaluating and making recommendations on the conduct of federal elections in Australia. It is a unique vehicle for doing so. It is unique in parliamentary systems to have such a facility. It is an important facility too. Given the issues of the 2013 federal election—namely, the loss of ballots in Western Australia—the role of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has never been more important.

Most of the recommendations in the final report tabled today will strengthen the already robust Australian electoral system; however, Labor members of the committee, rightly, had concerns about the intent of two recommendations, and I will specify these concerns. Firstly, it is inconceivable that with an estimated 1.5 million Australians not on the electoral roll the government majority on the committee thought it was acceptable to make it harder for the direct enrolment program to operate. Secondly, the introduction of identity requirements for casting a vote on election day will have serious implications for voter engagement for many groups of disadvantaged voters.

The report also captures the recommendations made by two interim reports regarding electronic voting and Senate reform. The electronic voting report is simply excellent. The report on Senate voting is critical. Australians have recently become aware of the damaging potential impact of electoral manipulation in the Senate. Last year's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election: Senate voting practices clearly identifies threats to the integrity of Senate elections. The report highlighted voters' lack of control over the distribution of their own preferences. Above-the-line voting relies on preference flows. Ninety-six point five per cent of formal Senate votes in the last federal election were above-the-line votes. To get a box above the ballot line, a party must lodge a valid group voting ticket, which dictates the flow of its preferences. The current system has encouraged the creation of microparties that harvest and then direct preferences to each other, from voters who have no practical way of knowing where their vote will ultimately land. Parties can garner primary votes above the line and then harvest the preferences in a cascade of preference swaps.

Recent state and federal elections have seen a proliferation of microparties, highlighting the ease with which parties can register and creating a risk of manipulation of election outcomes. The inquiry by the committee concluded that the risks were real. The committee's remedies encompassed better regulation of political parties, not allowing individuals to act on behalf of multiple parties, the removal of group voting tickets, the introduction of limited optional preferential above-the-line voting, and making voting below the line simpler.

The government is yet to respond to the recommendations of the May 2014 report. I hope that this delay does not indicate a lack of resolve. It would be a travesty for Australian democracy if these careful and thought-through reforms were not in place in time for the next federal election. These reforms will significantly strengthen our democratic process by reducing the capacity for manipulation and increasing transparency in our electoral system, which, despite these concerns, still remains among the most stable and effective in the world.

These reforms are not intended to stifle or prevent the formation of new parties or the operation of existing parties. People should be encouraged to join political parties, be involved in political debates and policy formulation, and actively participate in electoral processes. However political parties that field candidates for election should meet integrity standards. These standards are reasonable and are not a reflection on our current Senate composition; they are instead a safeguard against future manipulation.

We should see the government's response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report soon, I hope. Its response should be consistent with the committee's six recommendations. It should not break new ground, and it should attend to the clearly identified threat to the integrity of Senate elections—and that threat has been identified. If not, then Australians will be entitled to ask after the next election why we in this place did not act when we in this parliament knew and were aware of the integrity flaws and the threats to our electoral system.

See this speech in context