Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens do support these amendments. It was interesting to hear some of the comments by senators from Labor and the coalition parties on why they will not be supporting them. I think it is worth us remembering that these amendments are actually very minimalist.

I acknowledge that the Greens amendments that we saw, which were very important, were voted down. That would certainly have been our preferred position in not raising the bar. But what we have here with the amendment before us is not stopping the rise; it is just saying, 'Don't bring it in immediately. Be reasonable.' It is allowing parties, candidates and Independents to be able to get things organised so the burden will not be so onerous, but again we are seeing the Labor and coalition parties collaborating to make it more difficult.

You have heard from a few senators spelling out the damage this can do to the democratic process. It was interesting when Senator Feeney came in on the debate. What did we hear him say? He said he endorses the remarks by Senator Ryan. It is very troubling when you see the two largest party groups come together and collaborate in this way. Senators in this House are creatures of the electoral process. We know that, come election time, there are so many issues people feel passionate about. There will be new parties thrown up, but now it is harder. We heard Senator Feeney also say that he does not believe it will be onerous or a disincentive. Certainly senators from the coalition use similar arguments—they are saying that it strikes a fair balance.

Maybe there will be a similar number of candidates running, but the people who will particularly lose out are those who do not have much income, people who are already disadvantaged. One group I have seen are becoming very active at the moment. My colleague Senator Rachel Siewert is doing a great deal of work with single parents, single mothers, who are being extremely disadvantaged because the government is taking money off them. Some of them might choose to run in the election. This will make them think twice about it. But I imagine that some of them, because they are so disturbed by what is happening to them, will want to engage in the political process, and here we have the bar raised so high. To say it is striking the right balance is just so out of tune with reality.

Senator Madigan made the point about not abusing the people who choose to run in the electoral process. Some of them may not come back at another time, but many of them do. They plod away, working out how they can gradually get support. It is worth remembering that probably more than half of the federal election candidates will not get their nomination fee refunded. So on so many levels there is a financial burden, but we are adding to it at an excessive level and it will be very damaging. I thought that Senator Ryan's comments about local government elections and that his party does not run candidates was splitting hairs. We see this in New South Wales: for years and years, over many election campaigns, the coalition have said they do not run in local government elections, but there they all are, active members within their own party, carrying out coalition party policies when they get into local government. When they run for elections they do not inform voters of the party they are a member of and what they actually stand for. Again, there are concerning levels of misinformation, but the Greens are pleased to vote for this amendment. It is important to remind the chamber that this is a very minimalist amendment. How could you possibly vote against something that only gives some time before the full amount kicks in?