David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 and ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

I rise today to present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016.

The capacity for a voter to clearly and simply express his or her preference is surely the most fundamental feature of any electoral system.

The overarching goal of any electoral system must be to ensure that it reflects the genuine will of the people.

The current voting system in the Senate falls well short of meeting this most fundamental goal.

This situation was reflected by the unanimous 2014 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in which representatives of the coalition, Labor Party and Greens all unanimously agreed that the system was in dire need of reform.

Under current arrangements in the Senate, a voter who marks '1' for a party in a box above the line has no control over where their preferences flow.

This is determined by the party and the arrangement that it has made with other parties as part of what is known as a group-voting ticket.

Group-voting tickets enable parties to trade their preferences to maximise their chances for election. But they take away power from the voter.

Moreover, group-voting tickets have been used to 'game' the electoral system.

At the 2013 federal election, the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party candidate was elected to the Senate with a record low primary vote of just 0.51 per cent.

Through the use of group-voting tickets, no fewer than 20 microparties directed all of their preferences to that candidate, and he was elected despite receiving such a minute primary vote.

Group-voting tickets are available for electors to examine. But very few voters do so in practice. The arrangements are extremely complex and are often lodged at short notice before the election.

The central reform of this bill is that group-voting tickets will be abolished.

The committee and most submitters and witnesses to this inquiry fully support this proposal.

Under the proposed system, a vote above the line for a party will be a vote for candidates in that party only, according to the party's order of candidates below the line.

This means that voters themselves—rather than political operatives—will determine the manner in which their preferences are allocated.

If electors vote above the line, they themselves will be able to choose the order in which their votes are allocated. They will decide the order in which their preferences are allocated. Now, surely, that is an entirely appropriate and reasonable system to be adopted?

In May 2014, the committee unanimously proposed reform to Senate voting arrangements below the line. It proposed a system of what is known as 'partial optional preferential voting' below the line.

The committee believes that it is a shortcoming of this bill that it does not address below-the-line voting in a substantive fashion.

It does seem anomalous that the bill proposes partial optional preferential voting above the line but full preferential voting below the line.

The committee's view is that below-the-line voting should be addressed to ensure that voters can select candidates below the line in the order of their preference without having to fill in every single square below the line, as occurs at present.

Preferential voting below the line is most important to ensure that voting below the line is not the extraordinarily arduous process that it is currently. Of course, that acts as a disincentive for electors to vote below the line.

The committee recommends that for below-the-line voting a system of optional preferential voting be implemented, in which voters are instructed to market a minimum of 12 preferences to vote below the line.

A related savings provision for below-the-line votes would ensure that any ballot with at least six boxes in a sequential order starting at '1' would be considered formal.

With the addition of partial optional preferential voting below the line, the committee strongly supports this bill.

The abolition of group-voting tickets represents the most significant electoral reform in this country for some time. Voters will know exactly where their preferences are going.

I thank the committee for its work during this inquiry and I thank the secretariat, led by Mr Richard Grant, for its work also.

I would also like to thank the 107 people and organisations who made submissions to the inquiry and the witnesses who appeared at yesterday's hearing for their contributions.

With the proposed amendment, I commend the bill to the House.