Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the chamber tonight to discuss the recent report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: the interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election Senate voting practices. As the Acting Deputy Speaker would know, this has been an issue of some public comment, particularly since the last federal election, given some of the results that occurred at that election and particularly given the rise in success of not only minor parties but also microparties. When I say microparties, I think it needs to be understood I am talking about the fact that we had one party where a representative was elected to the Senate who had only achieved a primary vote of some 0.51 per cent. That was the Motor Enthusiasts Party in Victoria, and it very nearly happened in WA—by only a handful of votes—with regard to the Sports Party.

This has been an issue which has been coming up for some time because of the nature of the operation of the Senate voting system, the way people have become more aware of it in the political system and the nature of how some have sought to utilise that system to achieve outcomes. I stress that those who seek to do so are doing this quite legally; there is no question about that. However, there is a question regarding the results that it achieves and whether or not that in fact represents a reasonable reflection of the will of the voters.

I thought what I might do tonight is address several of the points around those issues given some of the public debate that has occurred in the lead-up to and since the report was released. The point here is that the recommendations of the report have often been categorised as being about the big parties ganging up on the little parties. The appeal has been very much to the Australian sense of egalitarianism and that what we should be ensuring is that we have a democratic system that allows a thousand flowers to bloom but does not actually allow the big parties to gang up. However, the real question with an electoral system is about achieving a democratic result. When I say democratic, the issue is whether it reflects the will of the voters. There are times when, I have to be honest, I am not really impressed with the will of the voters with respect to what they do. In my electorate I think they have done pretty well over the last eight terms, although others may disagree.

What I would say is that, when you go to the issue of our democratic will and to the issue of the operation of the Senate system, there are some key questions. One of the arguments that is put by some people is that, because in recent elections in excess of 20 per cent of voters have in the Senate voted for non-major parties, that suggests that there is a clear democratic will that one—or almost two—senators ought to be part of that non-major party component. But that makes some assumptions and the assumptions need to be challenged. The argument seems to be that anyone who does not vote for a major party supports all minor parties, or that someone who chooses to vote for the Sex Party, for example, in fact is quite happy for their vote to be included if necessary in a quota that might elect someone from the Christian Democrats. In this assumption, you have a situation where someone who might support a party such as the Motoring Enthusiast Party then has concerns around the environment. I think that has to be challenged.

There has been work done in looking at below-the-line voting and the nature of the preferences displayed by those who choose to vote below the line for non-major parties, and there is a very clear correlation in that area with respect to the politics of the individuals. It is very much a matter where parties of a more progressive nature will tend to preference to each other at the minor level and parties of a more conservative nature will tend to coalesce in that direction. They will also tend to end up on the major parties that they think best reflect their philosophical views.

The fact is that all parties have at various times utilised the Senate voting system and the group voting tickets, which allow parties to nominate preferences in a manner that suits the particular political arrangements that they enter into. Around election time, major parties involve themselves in preference deals; so do minor parties. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. I have done one or two in my time and I have to say it is a great way to bring you to tears. What I would say is that there is a real argument that, to some extent anyway, it conflicts with the democratic will of the voters. Yes, some say that as a voter you can always check what the ticket says and then make your own decision about what you do with a group voting ticket. However, the fact of the matter is that, overwhelmingly, people do not avail themselves of that opportunity. Most of them are not aware of it and, frankly, that in itself is, I think, not sufficient to suggest that you are giving people a genuine opportunity to reflect their democratic will in their preferences.

The committee was really confounded by that issue. It was also confounded by the fact that what we have seen happening in recent elections is a massive explosion in parties registering and seeking to contest Senate elections in particular. To give a couple of figures from the report, regarding groups that were registered for Senate elections, in 2010 there were some 32 groups registered in New South Wales; in 2013 it was 44. Tasmania exploded from 10 to 23 and the ACT from four to 13—although I cannot quite work out why that happened. The thing is that what we see, what we have seen and what was clear from the evidence presented to the committee is that a range of players, if you like, are seeking to utilise the capacity to register parties and register group voting tickets and, in that way, engage in preference negotiations to achieve results. Again, it is completely legal, but there is a real question mark as to whether it is actually delivering democratic results.

I wish the new senator from the Motoring Enthusiast Party all the very best. It is a very tough job to be in this place and to be an independent or even part of a small group of minor party members. There is a lot to consider and a lot to do. The pressure will be on him. I have no idea whether he will turn out to be a good, bad or indifferent senator; that also is often in the eye of the beholder. What I would say is that I think there is absolutely no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people who effectively ended up voting for him had absolutely no idea that that is where they would end up delivering their democratic support. That in itself is a real question.

The reforms that have been recommended by the committee provide for a situation where, I believe, the results that will occur through the conduct of elections will demonstrate a more democratic outcome with respect to the will of the voters. There is a danger that there will be significant levels of exhaustion on the basis of the optional preferential option. I do not think that is a good thing, but in the context of Senate ballots and the questions around the circumstance of groups of candidates supported by particular parties, and the nature of the proportional representation system, there really is no alternative to that. I think that if the choice is between having the democratic will hijacked by group voting tickets, as has occurred in recent times, and the issue of a degree of exhaustion, I think that the latter is preferable. I think it is preferable from a democratic point of view because it the result will better reflect the will of the Australian people as exhibited at an election.

These recommendations are also serious about addressing some of the issues around registration of parties. There is no doubt that the federal registration requirements are remiss by comparison to state jurisdictions. Frankly, it is harder to register and to stay registered in some states than it is to be registered federally. Therefore, there is a need to increase the requirements with respect to processes and the requirements with respect to membership numbers, in order to ensure the bona fides of parties.

I think it is a good thing in our system that we can have parties spring up and achieve electoral success, and it does happen. It has happened in the past. It even happened in the last election with the Palmer United Party, and has done in recent times with parties like the Greens and the Democrats. It will not always be something I agree with myself from a political point of view, but I think it is a good thing. However, I do not think it is a good thing to have a situation where you can put out a shingle, put in a few names, and end up in a situation where you can get on a ballot paper with a range of other similar parties—or similarly structured parties—and game the system.

This report is designed to put forward some concrete recommendations which will deal with that in the context of our Senate elections into the future. The last major revision of Senate rules occurred in 1984. I think this is a good step forward, and I urge the government to embrace the recommendations that are part of it.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will briefly speak on the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The right to vote is very important in any country, and we have to remember how sacred that right to vote is. We need to ensure the system we have gives the opportunity for individual citizens to have their democratic views fully respected.

I have some concerns about the current compulsory preferential system. I know that throughout the country there are many people who simply do not understand the compulsory preferential system, where they have to number every square. This is especially true in states such as New South Wales, where we have an optional system for preferential voting for the state elections but a compulsory system for the federal election. Many people in our country went to the 2013 election thinking that they were voting for a candidate by writing the number 1—whether it was for the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens or one of the other minor parties—and thinking that they were voting for that party. Their intention was clear, but because we have a compulsory system, and because they did not number every square, their vote was deemed informal. If someone puts a '1' in the square, it is very clear as to what their intention is, but the voter, because of that honest mistake, is disenfranchised.

I believe that, going forward, federally we need to look at adopting an optional preferential system of voting to make sure that those people are not disenfranchised, and to make sure that where they clearly intend to give their vote to one party or to one candidate, that that vote is respected. Of course, if they then wish to go ahead and distribute their preferences, they can do so, and that vote will also be counted the way it should be. I believe this would improve our democratic system. It would more accurately reflect the will of the people—the will of the voters—and, ultimately, that is what our electoral system should do.

Debate adjourned.