Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this matter of public importance because I believe the issue of Senate voting reform is truly a matter of public importance—not for the reasons outlined in this motion but for the integrity of our democracy itself. There is absolutely no-one in this place more aware of the imperfections of our Senate voting system and the AEC processes than me, having had to contest two Senate elections within seven months because of these very imperfections.

The current system is clearly broken and needs urgent reform before the next federal election. As so clearly articulated by Senator Rhiannon—in fact, I almost thought she had done the job for me and that I would have to sit down—one of her previous colleagues, former Greens senator Christine Milne, in an op-ed yesterday, very adroitly described the urgency of the need for reform. She said:

Leaving things the way they are now, without the proposed reforms, means voting 1 above the line on your Senate ballot paper is like putting a ping pong ball in the mouth of a fibreglass clown at the Easter Show.

How right she is.

It is a fundamental tenet of democracy that Australians have the right to know exactly where their vote is going when they fill out their ballot paper. It is very clear from the bipartisan reports on the last federal election that up to 97 per cent of Australian voters who voted above the line on the Senate ballot paper had little or no control over where their vote ended up and who it assisted to get elected. That is not democracy.

The proposed changes to our very broken Senate voting system are neither new nor something that has been hurried, as suggested in this MPI. In fact, the situation is quite the opposite. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters did an extensive inquiry into the 2013 election and, in May 2014, almost two years ago, issued the Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election. That report on Senate voting practices has been in the public arena for nearly two years. The bipartisan committee, which included highly respected members of the ALP—Senator Faulkner, Alan Griffin MP and Gary Gray MP—unanimously concluded that the current system of Senate voting let voters down at the 2013 election and that the status quo is simply not an option.

The report also found that voters in the 2013 election felt their votes had been devalued by preference deals and that voters had been disenfranchised by being forced to prefer un-preferred candidates. That is not the coalition speaking; that is a bipartisan committee which found our system is fundamentally undemocratic. In the same report, which, again, was delivered almost two years ago—and not out of the blue, as is now being suggested—the committee made six key recommendations which they believed were urgent to improve the Senate voting system for the 2016 election.

It is also important in this current debate to put Senate reform into historical context. Since Federation, the Australian Parliament has never shied away from reform to progressively improve our electoral system, in particular the vexatious Senate voting system. Our current electoral systems have evolved over the past century and, while the House of Representatives method of voting system was largely settled by 1918 with several small changes since then, voting for the Senate has continued to be the subject of debate and progressive reforms over the last century. This demonstrates that we do not have to be wedded to the system, which we inherited and which clearly has problems, simply for history's sake.

The introduction of the committee's bipartisan report delivered a very compelling rationale for these changes. It said these changes were necessary—to provide simplicity, integrity, transparency and clarity in the Senate voting system. The changes would also provide the people with the power to express and to have their voting intent upheld; they would also restore confidence that the system of Senate voting actually reflects the will of the Australian people. The report very clearly said that the system that has evolved is inherently undemocratic and that urgent change was required.

The report also provided a number of tangible examples of just how broken the current system is. The first example was the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party of Victoria, which received only 0.51 per cent, or just over 17,000 formal first preference votes in Victoria, equalling just 0.0354 of a quota. The party was elected to the final seat with a transfer of 143,118 votes from the Sex Party—many of whom would probably have been very surprised to find that their vote got the Motoring Enthusiast Party elected—but whose transferred votes had been transferred from over 20 other parties, arguably coming from voters who had no idea that their vote would elect a candidate from an unrelated party that had 0.0354 of a quota. The second example is from Western Australia, which, as I said, I recall all too well. There was a 14-vote difference between two candidates at one exclusion point and a 12-vote difference at the same exclusion point during the recount. It again demonstrates that there are very serious problems.

Based on these recommendations and the extensive public debate that has occurred now for nearly two years, the government is proposing reforms to empower voters to take back control of their votes in a Senate election. As Senator Rhiannon said, that is exactly what the Labor Party put in its submission two years ago, but, as we have just heard from Senator Dastyari and no doubt we will hear from Senator Cameron, the Labor Party is now starting to unleash confusing misinformation about these reforms. The latest we heard from Senator Dastyari was that these changes would lead to 800,000 additional informal votes. That is clearly false, clearly without substance and clearly insulting to Australian voters who absolutely can mark a ballot paper one to six above the line with their own preferences. It is outrageous to suggest that Australian people cannot number one to six.

In contrast to this approach, however, the Hon. Gary Gray, who was a member of the committee, is on the record both then and now as strongly supporting the changes. So what did Mr Gray have to say this month in an opinion piece in the Weekend West? He said that the measures 'significantly strengthen our democratic process and restore transparency'. He had the courage to stand up for what the Labor Party actually said two years ago to say: 'This system sucks. It is not democratic and I will stand on principle to support what I believe is right.' Mr Gray went on to urge 'the government should act now without delay and before the next election'.

Why now? We have been discussing these proposals for nearly two years and we need to do it soon. The Australian Electoral Commission needs at least three months to implement the changes ahead of the next general election, which, as we know is scheduled for the second half of this year. What are these so-called rushed reforms that have been discussed publicly for nearly two years? One is the abolition of group-voting tickets and the provision of above-the-line voting for up to six boxes so that people can clearly choose the parties of their preference. They can vote for any of the independents or minor parties, but, instead of their votes being subject to backroom deals for group-voting tickets, they will get to choose—independents, minor parties, the Greens, Labor or Liberal. I think that is a fabulous outcome.

Another important change is the reduced opportunity for people to game and become registrars of multiple parties. Another change, which will be important for new Australians and for Australians who cannot read, is printing party logos on the ballot paper. That is a huge step forward in enfranchising such people in a more meaningful way.

In conclusion, Labor senators are under-estimating the ability of Australians to vote for the people of their choice. (Time expired)'