Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

In terms of the process, there had been this area, but it is not the identical recommendation from 2014 or 2015. It does have similarities, and I am sure we will hear about that when we get into the substantive discussion of the bill when it comes forward. The other issue I am concerned about is that, in the rather short discussions that we had last week when we were looking at what was going to happen into the future, we have heard a number of people talk about the fact that the Labor Party now has a different opinion to what it had when the submission was submitted. I did have a look at the submission that the Labor Party put forward to the committee, I think, 18 months ago. There has been significant time for people to think about that process since then. Unsurprisingly, there has been some further discussion within the party and we are now saying that we have a different view. I do not think that that is such a major issue in this place. On many occasions there have been various views put forward. The only argument that we got from the government last week about why they were concerned that we were making any discussion about why we think this a such a significant change to our electoral processes that we need further time for discussion here and in the wider community was, 'Hey—you guys have changed your minds.' I do not think that should be the beginning and the end of the argument. We need to have a much closer look at what we are doing on this particular bill than the current process put before us allows. That is not an unusual request.

I know how complex electoral processes are. I, like many people here, have worked on booths at many federal elections and know how concerned citizens are when they see the size of the Senate paper and think about what their role will be in voting for the Senate. Perhaps because where I often work people know who I am, at any election I get more questions about how the Senate voting process operates than about how the House of Representatives voting process operates. So I know that already in the community there are concerns about the complexity of the process.

The saddest thing in any election—that is a big call, if you do not win—is to have informal votes. It breaks my heart when I am a scrutineer, as I have been many times, and I see the number of times people make errors when they are voting. When I had a look at the history of voting in the Senate, one of the major reasons for the change 30 years ago was to minimise the number of informal votes in the Senate. Already at that time it had been identified that there were a large number of informal votes in the Senate, and it was a concern raised in the various discussions around the various changes 30 years ago. There already is a great need in the community to have more understanding and more support about how people register their votes everywhere, but in particular in the Senate.

The reason that we are making this particular intervention this afternoon, which is a procedural process, is again to reinforce how seriously we believe discussions around this electoral bill should be taken in this place and also to give a message to the wider community about how important these discussions are. It should not be something that people allow other people to worry about and to debate. This is something that affects every citizen who goes to a polling booth whenever a Senate election is called.

What we are seeking is a longer term for the opportunity to look at the issues, to consider exactly what is involved in the changes and even to have a look at some other options. Because this is the proposal brought forward, all we have in front of us is one option. Our leader, Senator Wong, made it very clear in debate last week that no-one is saying that the current system is perfect. We are not saying there is not room for change. We have never said that. None of our people who attended the previous meetings of the joint committee said that. Anyone who is now involved in the current process agrees that there could well be a clear need for change.

The participating members process that the government has offered us so generously this week is a farce. I have looked at how the process is supposed to work tomorrow: the small number of people who are able to come to give evidence; the fact that there is very little opportunity for written submissions; and the fact that when you look at the sequence for opportunity to ask questions, it would not matter if I had put my hand up to say that I desperately wanted to be a participating member on the committee—I would have no opportunity to ask a single question in the time allowed, which was predetermined. By reason of the tightness of time and the number of people involved it is quite clearly set out who will be able to ask a question and when. When you look at the opportunity given to each witness and the number of people who may be able to attend, this is not a chance, as we were told last week, for more senators to be involved in the process. Sure, we could come along as a chorus to watch and see what is happening, but this is not a way that more senators can participate in the process.

It is not good enough. There needs to be more consideration of change so that citizens feel that when they go to the polls they will understand how they are voting and for whom they are voting and so that we here will also understand that people will have that opportunity as well.