Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to address the issues raised by Senator Madigan; both the matters raised in the second reading debate with respect to these amendments and the matters he has just raised. I agree with him, initially. While this is not my portfolio, I do represent it for the coalition in the Senate, and I agree with him wholeheartedly that we should not be calling players in the political process, or trying to remove their ability to participate by referring to them as, 'nutters'—that was the word that I think Senator Madigan used—or 'fringe players'. That is not appropriate and it is for the people to decide. I do not believe it, and I sincerely believe that people on this side of the chamber do not believe that either. My record on belief in free speech, absent legislative controls—some of which exist in this country today—I think is testament to that particular view.

The coalition does not believe that these increases actually impose an undue burden. We do impose a burden on those who participate in the political process by being candidates in anything more than voting. We actually do impose a burden on citizens by virtue of compelling them to vote and compelling them to enrol—these days they do not get a choice in the latter.

We do impose a burden on those who participate in the political process by virtue of the registration system and the compliance regime we have for candidates. I would contend that, to many smaller groups in the community, the compliance regime is actually a much greater burden than the nomination fee. That is my experience, having worked in this particular area and having spoken to many community groups for a long time. It is something about which I have gone on record before at JSCEM hearings and estimates hearings when we have had these discussions with the AEC and indeed in this chamber.

So whether or not we impose a burden for participation I do not think is the question. We do that. We talk about registering political parties and we have a requirement for a number of nominators to nominate someone if they are an Independent. There is the requirement to disclose political funding. All of those apply to candidates and to political parties. So the question before us with this legislation and what was before the joint standing committee was: what is the degree of burden that it is legitimate to impose?

I understand the frustration of Senator Madigan; I do actually have sympathy for the position of small parties. I note in this case that there are issues around the impact on the longstanding and legitimate smaller parties in this country. The Democratic Labor Party has been around in this country for coming up on 60 years. It has had members in this chamber for many decades. In fact, Senator Madigan's election at the last federal poll was testament to the longevity of that political organisation. I understand what Senator Madigan has just said—that there will be an impact upon him and his party. But we also have to be aware that there are other small groups who do not have that longstanding commitment or those bona fides with respect to the Australian political process. We do need to guard against groups that nominate purely in order to harvest preferences.

If I could refer to an example where I think this is causing a problem with legitimacy in the political process, it is in Victorian local government elections where, due to the lack of third party scrutiny and the sheer number of candidates and the ease of nomination, most people have absolutely no idea who they are voting for. You get a little booklet from the VEC. There is not the same amount of information provided by the media, nor is there probably the same degree of community interest, I hasten to add, as there might be for federal politics. But it is also clear from anecdote after anecdote that there are examples in local government elections in Victoria of people running as what might be called preference vehicles. The little booklet goes out and they will nominate a how-to-vote card and recommend people vote a certain way and, due to the electoral systems often used, those preferences can be critical.

We have to guard, in my view, against this level of disengagement resulting in a similar event occurring at the federal level. We did make a change a while ago to the Electoral Act that prevented political parties nominating more than one candidate because of, in my view, a loophole—some may view it as an historic position—in the Electoral Act that allowed political parties to nominate more than one candidate at a particular election. In one famous example we had well over half-a-dozen examples—I think it could have been in double figures—of one particular party using that legal right and privilege to nominate more than one candidate at a by-election in the last parliament. I do not think, given the general, fair and reasonable community understanding of our political process, that that was a reasonable thing to do. I think the parliament acted reasonably to say, 'Political parties get the privilege of nominating someone, but they nominate a single candidate.' That was, again, an example of a burden that was imposed on political participants, but one which the parliament felt was reasonable.

On this particular example, I have had discussions with Senator Madigan. I think that these particular amendments are a reasonable burden, but I accept that they are a burden. They reflect the fact that we have logistical issues in managing the ballot papers for, particularly, the Senate in our larger states. It does not particularly apply to members of the House of Representatives.

I would also refer to the example that, when that threshold is reached, the money is refunded. That is not to dismiss the fact that I appreciate a cash-flow issue would apply to those who have to pay the deposit. It is true to say that the larger political parties are beneficiaries of substantial amounts of political funding. I do accept that point.

The alternative is a situation where a lack of confidence can develop, not through the actions of people in this chamber or parties or Independents represented in this chamber—I hasten to add and say as genuinely as I can—but through a number of groups that I have seen on Senate ballot papers over the last 10 years who have never appeared on another Senate ballot paper. They have been once-off groups.

It is pretty clear that there have been similar figures involved in multiple groups by multiple names where preferences have consistently gone in one direction. I do not think that adds to our political process, I do not think it makes it easier for the voters to understand who they are voting for and I do not think it adds to the legitimacy of the result. With all due respect, Senator Madigan, and I am trying to understand the situation as best I can, the coalition will be supporting the retention of the schedule as outlined in the bill.