John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of document 19: Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Conduct of the 2013 federal election: Senate voting practices—Interim report. I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has an important role after every federal election to review the conduct of that election and provide recommendations for government and the parliament to consider. This interim report tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters focuses on Senate voting and party registration which are issues that caused considerable concern in the 2013 election. I am pleased that the JSCEM has tabled this interim report so that policy and legislative decisions can be made to ensure the will of voters at the next Senate election is properly reflected by the senators who are chosen by the people.

The primary concern of JSCEM has been to address the growing practice of preference harvesting by micro-parties, which has made Senate voting convoluted and confusing; and it has simply warped and manipulated the will of voters. Above the line voting and group voting tickets for the Senate were introduced in 1984 to address the high level of informal voting. Voters were required to number every square on the ballot paper and mistakes in preference sequences meant votes were declared informal. Since those reforms, the vast majority of Senate votes have been cast above the line. However, the emergence in recent years of bogus micro-parties who rely on multilayered preference deals with other parties has distorted this above the line voting system and action needs to be taken. Like the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 1984, the current Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has been focused on making certain that the will of voters in Senate elections is not distorted or frustrated. This interim report contains what I believe are good recommendations—recommendations that will lead to fair and effective reform of Senate voting and party registration. I trust that the report will be well received, and I think it certainly has been to this stage.

The committee's first recommendation for Senate voting is to allow preferences to be used by voters above the line and to make below the line voting less onerous by requiring voters to fill in only six or 12 squares, depending on whether it is a half Senate election or a double dissolution. In practice, this will mean that the voters themselves will control the candidates and party groups who get their vote and their preferences. So rather than just voting 1 above the line and allowing preferences to flow according to the parties' wishes, voters would be able, for example, to vote 1, 2, 3 and so forth above the line and their preferences would flow through each of those party groups according, importantly, to the voter's wishes. I would say that this reform is uncontroversial and it is certainly overdue.

Similar reforms were considered in 2009 in the then government's electoral reform green paper, Strengthening Australia's democracy. It is unfortunate, I believe, that those reforms did not progress at that time. Five years later, there was overwhelming evidence presented to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that the Senate voting system was still in need of repair. The evidence is well summarised in chapter 3 of the interim report. Above the line voting has developed to a point where bogus microparties engage in what I call 'game theory' and send preferences through a myriad of politically disconnected parties without any concern as to what a voter's real intention might have been. The 'gaming' of preferences by microparties has bastardised the Senate voting system, and the committee's recommended reforms to above the line voting, I believe, should deal with this very difficult problem.

I concur with proposals to simplify below the line voting in Senate elections. There is no good reason why voters should have to give a vast list of preferences for their vote to be formal. If a voter chooses to vote below the line, then the simple requirement for a minimum number of preferences has far more integrity and is less confusing than a system where voters have to decide on which known candidate might get their 72nd or 45th preference and so forth.

The committee's second recommendation, to abolish group voting tickets, is, I believe, a good recommendation also. It is directly linked to recommendation 1. Group voting tickets served an administrative purpose, helping to minimise the level of informal voting. However, group voting tickets are now being abused by microparties and there has been ample evidence presented to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that a voter's true voting intention is getting lost. Preferences are a critical part of our voting system; we all acknowledge that, and the combination of reforms to above the line voting and the abolition of group voting tickets will ensure, I believe, the allocation is controlled by voters. And that is important. I trust that recommendation 3 is adopted by the government and that the AEC is properly resourced to run information campaigns about the changes.

Recommendations 4 and 5 are sensible proposals that will ensure a party seeking federal registration has genuine public support. Currently a party needs only 500 members nationally to be registered. This is below the 750 required for registration in New South Wales, equal to the 500 needed in Victoria and well below the 2,350 members required in aggregate to register in every state and territory. Raising the minimum party membership to 1,500 for federal registration is quite reasonable, especially given the privilege that registration gives a party, such as having their name appear above the line on the Senate ballot paper. I am pleased the committee is recommending that parties operating in only one state need fewer members to register and also that members relied upon for party registration can only do that for one party.

I do have serious reservations about the final recommendation, recommendation 6, regarding a new residency requirement for candidates. I am pleased, of course, that the interim report has had bipartisan support. It is a unanimous report. I certainly did not let my concerns about recommendation 6 stop that becoming a unanimous report as a member of the committee, and I look forward to seeing the government's response to the committee's recommendations. (Time expired)