David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the government, I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments being moved by the Greens. I will at this juncture set out in more detail the government's position and contest some of the positions put forward by Senator Rhiannon. I begin, Senator Rhiannon, by thanking you for your contribution, but evidently the government has reached some different conclusions in promoting this legislation. We do not believe that the changes proposed in this bill represent the barrier or disincentive to democratic participation that you say they do.

The changes proposed in this bill, as I said in my earlier remarks, are to increase the nomination fee from $1,000 to $2,000 for Senate candidates and from $500 to $1,000 for candidates in the House of Representatives. That is increasing a number that was last set in 2006, and that will be, by the time the next election comes upon us, some seven years ago. We believe that an increase is appropriate. I suspect you may too, although you have not spoken to that. We certainly do not believe that the increase described here is a significant disincentive to our citizenry. The changes proposed in the bill will also increase the number of nominations required for unendorsed candidates—that is, those who are not endorsed by a registered political party and are not sitting Independents—from 50 to 100 electors, including for each candidate in a Senate group. I think you said in your remarks that this was a barrier to the diversity of candidates being offered to the Australian people, and again I submit that that is not the case. In fact, for candidates speaking to the diversity to which you perhaps aspire, I do not think we could say that moving from 50 to 100 signatures of unique electors is a dramatic impost upon such a candidate. For anybody putting themselves up for public office in a division of some 90,000 persons or in a state of millions—potentially many millions—that is not an onerous number. Both of these measures have been recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and the joint standing committee obviously made those recommendations in the context of having considered those issues and indeed having held a public inquiry.

The proposed level of fees reflects the significance of nominating to be a candidate in a federal election, and I am sure we will all agree it is a most significant thing. In 1905 the nomination fee was 25 pounds. The government is of the view that the proposed new levels of fees—$1,000 and $2,000—are no more significant than those which applied in 1905. The government also notes that section 173 of the Electoral Act provides that the nomination fee is to be refunded by the AEC if the candidate is elected or if the total number of first preference votes polled in the candidate's favour is at least four per cent of the total number of votes polled. This might seem blindingly obvious, but I think it is important for us to remind ourselves and anyone listening to this debate that in fact these are moneys which are for the most part returned to candidates, and that is a very significant point. Accordingly, a candidate is able to obtain a refund of the nomination fee if they or their Senate group can poll the requisite four per cent of the first preferences. Given the well-documented increase in the informality of votes where the ballot paper is large and complex, the government is of the view that the public interest in some candidates having to pay increased fees is far outweighed by the public interest in making it easier for the voting public to complete their ballot papers so that their vote can be counted.

A critical part of our system is the integrity of our system—making sure that all of those candidates and Senate groups that are running are indeed bona fide candidates seeking public office in good faith. We do not want to see a proliferation of candidates or tickets which are there for no other purpose than to provide preferences. I am sure that again is a resolve that we all share, and the government believes that these are amendments which strengthen our system and attend to those objectives that we all share.