Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. I speak in support of this bill as both a former Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and a member of parliament with one of the largest populations of first-time voters in their electorate. This bill is about one thing only: democracy—that is the process of selecting representatives by majority ballot. It is about nothing more than that. It is not about what is fair or unfair; it is not about what might advantage one party but disadvantage another. It is about the process—the process of selecting representatives by majority ballot and reflecting, to the greatest extent possible, the true intention of the voter. Whatever others may submit to the contrary, either in this House or in the other place, is, with respect, irrelevant.

Protestations against the spirit and intent of this bill are motivated by self-interest and self-interest alone—the self-interest of those who owe their elected positions and the money and prestige that come with them to the vagaries of an opaque and confusing preference system, which lends itself to manipulation by so-called preference whisperers to produce perverse electoral outcomes. Let me make this crystal clear: anyone who argues against the spirit of this bill is arguing to retain a system that deliberately or otherwise permits the intention of the voter to be obscured in accordance with the backroom deals of political parties.

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill is informed by the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matter's Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election: Senate voting practices, with which the committee agreed unanimously. In the interests of transparency and in the event that any of the committee members seek to refashion themselves as latent objectors to the recommendations of the report, I will read into Hansard the membership of the committee at the time the report was tabled and universally supported: the member for Casey, who is now the Speaker of the House; the member for Bruce; the member for Moore; the member for Brand; the member for Mitchell, who is now the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer; Senator the Hon. John Faulkner; Senator Helen Kroger; Senator Lee Rhiannon; Senator Anne Ruston; and Senator Mehmet Tillem.

The bill, inter alia, seeks to do the following: first, introduce an optional preferential above-the-line voting system, which will include advice on the ballot paper instructing the voter to number at least six of the boxes in order of their preference; second, introduce a savings provision that stipulates that a vote is still formal where the voter numbers at least one box but fewer than six; third, reduce the number of informal votes by increasing, from three to five, the number of allowable mistakes, so long as 90 per cent of the below-the-line ballot paper has been completed correctly; fourth, abolish group and individual voting ticket deals; fifth, introduce a restriction to unique registered officers of a federally registered political party, to prevent an individual holding office in more than one political party; and, sixth, allow political parties, at their choosing, to display their party logo on the ballot paper to avoid voter confusion between similarly named political parties.

The combined effect of these measures is to reflect and preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the intention of the voter. The introduction of an optional preferential above-the-line voting system provides the voter with more choice—not less—in how they cast their vote. To cast an above-the-line vote, the voter can mark one box, or six, or three, or 12—or they can continue to vote below the line, if that is their preference. Any of those votes would be treated as formal. The bill gives voters more choice and, through the savings provisions, errs on the side of voter enfranchisement to a greater extent than the act currently does. The abolition of group and individual voting tickets gives the voter certainty about where their vote is going, and, by prohibiting people from holding office in more than one party, we reduce the instance of sham feeder tickets. And, with political parties being allowed to display a party logo on the ballot paper, voters will know that the party they are voting for is the party they intended to vote for.

The people in my electorate have lives outside politics. They are mums and dads, professionals, retirees and university students. When it comes time to vote, they do not expect to have to independently research dozens of group voting tickets just to know where their vote is going. They simply want to indicate who they are voting for and to have sufficient choice in how they cast their vote. That is not much to ask of this House. To support this bill is to support the rights of the voter. To support this bill is to support democracy. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context