Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate that I support Senator Madigan's amendment. It is a compromise position and I think it is very fair. There was the example given by Senator Rhiannon about a group of single parents, single mothers, who want to run at the next election. I acknowledge the work that Senator Siewert has done with groups that are concerned about those draconian changes to their benefits, which I also opposed. Why shouldn't they be allowed to run? Why shouldn't they be allowed to at least focus the minds of the major parties in particular? If they do get a groundswell of community support through running a virtually no-budget campaign—through Facebook, through social media, which you can do nowadays—why should they have the disincentive of having to stump up at least $4,000? It would be prohibitive for a group such as that. That is a very good case study that Senator Rhiannon has put up.

I am not picking on Clive Palmer. I am just using him as an example of a person who is interested in the political process, as he is entitled to be, who does have a bit of spare cash around the place. If he stumped up $100,000 he could have 25 separate groups, with two candidates each, running for the Senate. The logistics of that would make the Australian Electoral Commission shudder because it would be a tablecloth ballot paper. I do not think there would be any printer in the country that would be able to print it in one piece. You would have to glue it together or stick it together in some way.

This will act as a disincentive to genuine community groups. It will not prevent abuse from those that have the money to abuse the system in terms of the tablecloth ballot paper scenario. That is why we need to come back to the necessary reform, which would be that, if there is a genuine groundswell in a particular state or community, then having a slightly higher threshold for candidates would be a more amenable way of dealing with the issue to make sure people who are nominating have other people in the community backing them. That could include a requirement to have several hundred people nominate them rather than what is being proposed. I think that would get rid of the abuse. What is being proposed now would impact on groups such as single parents who might want to make a stand at the next election against the draconian changes to their benefits.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with item 1 on sheet 7281. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.