John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Following on, with the rhetoric, many of the points that Senator Collins made are quite pertinent to the subject. But last night, on the ABC's Q&A, the former Minister for Small Business in the government, Mr Billson, said: 'To see a person elected to the Australian Senate with 1,500 first preference votes that wouldn't even get you elected in a ward election in a local council, and then hold up the trajectory of the nation, make it impossible to hold governments to account for their promises and the commitments and the outcomes they deliver to our country—I think that's not good. Having people know where their vote's going—I think that is good. So I think there's a strong case for the reforms that are being put to the parliament.' I have listened to the government repeat this time and time again, and we have often heard references made to my fellow crossbench senators and Senator Muir in particular, who at the 2013 election received 479 first preference votes below the line.

But then you go and have a look at the frontbench of the government, and I go to look at how many first preference votes Senator Cash received below the line in the 2013 election, and Senator Cash—the Minister for Women, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment—received 349 first preference votes below the line. Then we have Senator Edwards, who received 667 first preference votes below the line. Senator Fawcett received 1,602 first preference votes below the line. And, of course, Senator Lambie received 1,501 first preference votes below the line.

Of course, it is true that many Australians vote above the line, and they vote according to the voting ticket that their party puts forward, whether it be the government—the Liberal Party and the National Party—the ALP, the Greens or PUP—whoever. So the fact of the matter is that the majority of people put 1 above the line and they say to their party, 'You distribute our vote according to how you, the party, see it.' If any member of the public cares to go to the Australian Electoral Commission website prior to the election, they can look up how the party is directing their preferences.

But, of course, they do not want the public to actually know. This bill is about self-interest and it is about political opportunism. I am all for transparency so the public know where their votes are going, and I support that. I support educating the public to care how they vote and who they vote for, to actually look beyond the tag of whether you are the ALP, the Liberals, the Nationals or the Nick Xenophon party, and to look at the individual who you are voting for to see if their beliefs and their ethics conform with yours—it might be 70 per cent; it might be 100 per cent; it might be 65 per cent—so people understand how their vote works, because there is an incredible amount of ignorance, unfortunately, in the general community about how your votes work.

It is an interesting position that we have here. On the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters are the government, the ALP and the Greens. There are no voting members on that committee other than them. That is a fact. Predominantly, this committee is a House of Representatives committee. In the past, on the public record, former prime ministers of our nation have shown an utter contempt for the Senate and the way the Senate works. Unless the Senate votes the way a government of the day wants it to vote, some people refer to the Senate as swill. So I would say to members of the government in the Senate: be careful what you wish for.

Often we hear in this place about legislation being rammed through this place, and the fact of the matter is that, in the previous Rudd-Gillard governments, the ALP-Greens coalition, for want of a better word, rammed through legislation. At that time, the now government—the Liberal-National party—complained profusely about that. It was an abuse of the Senate process, with lack of scrutiny and lack of process. Now, when the boot is on the other foot, we hear it from the now opposition, the then government.

Some people suggest that it is an easy thing to get into the Senate by gaming it. The fact of the matter is that it is a vertical ski slope. For the incumbents—the cabal, as some people would say—it is all in their favour. The fact of the matter is that in 2013 there was $58,076,456 paid to political parties represented in the House of Representatives and the Senate. To receive funding from the public purse, you have to get four per cent or more of the vote. That already is a huge advantage to incumbency. But we do not hear about that.

So I would suggest to the government: the argument that you use about how many votes people got below the line does not cut the mustard, let alone when you look at how, with the retirement or resignation of people from the Senate, we find people who did not even run in the 2010 or 2013 election and who now occupy seats in this Senate. They never put their name on a ballot paper, but now they are here. Yet we hear arguments about what the people want. They often do not even go to the person who actually ran in those two previous elections and was the next person on the ticket, whether it was the government ticket—the Liberals or the Nationals—or the ALP or the Greens ticket. There are many people who end up occupying seats in this place who have never faced an election and never faced the people.

I say to Senator Dastyari: you did not run, and you will admit that. You were picked by the party to be here. I am not insinuating, Senator Dastyari, that you should not be here. That is the system that the incumbent government has made in this place. Here we are, 30 years on, and one of the biggest electoral changes that the nation has seen in three decades is being rushed through. You would want to be careful what you wish for here. If we accept the government's argument about how many votes people get below the line, it should ring alarm bells for the government. If that is going to be the yardstick, have a look at how many below-the-line first preference votes Senator Di Natale got. One does not have to look too far. At the 2010 election, he got 34,208 votes below the line, with the number 1 in the box next to Senator Di Natale's name. Then look at one of the better performers for the coalition: Senator Fierravanti-Wells. At the 2010 election, Senator Fierravanti-Wells got 12,194 first preference votes below the line. I have to say that she is, by far, one of the better performers in the coalition. Look at how many votes Senator Cormann, who has carriage of this bill, got below the line. He got 5,215 votes in the 2010 election—less than one-sixth of the votes that Senator Di Natale got. I say to the government: the argument that you are putting forward about below-the-line votes does not cut the mustard. In the paper, you attack other people for their low vote. You want to take another look. Senator Bernardi, who is often attacked in this place for his views and for how outspoken he is, got 5,554 votes at the last election, in 2013. Senator Birmingham, who is the Minister for Education and Training, got 1,013 votes. He got fewer votes than I did, and yet he is a minister. But I am not calling into question the fact that he can be a minister.

There is a narrative about there being a problem. Should we have more scrutiny? Yes, we should have more scrutiny. But the government wants to think about what it is doing here. I caution the government: it is not going to ultimately turn out the way you think. You are playing into the hands of the Greens and other people. One thing the ALP has always said in the House of Representatives is 'one vote, one value'. I refer you to the Constitution, which talks about senators being elected by the people to the Senate to represent their states. That is what it says. That is not what I think it says; that is what it actually says. But, in our current system, if you vote 1 above the line for your first preference, you allocate how your vote is going to be distributed to that party above the line, whether it is the ALP, the government, the Greens, PUP, an Independent, a small or minor party or whoever. If you vote 1 above the line, they all distribute your vote according to how they see fit. That is a fact.

For 32 years—I think it was in 1984 that the system came into play—all the parties were part of putting this current system in place. I say to all of you in this place: for many years, this system has served you. Prior to an election, you all go around to small and minor parties, Independents and any other person who has nominated to run for the Senate, put up their $2,000 nomination fee—or whatever it is—and met all the requirements of the AEC. The fact of the matter is they have not broken the law. There are backroom deals and preference deals done by all parties and individuals represented in this place in some way, shape or form. The fact of the matter is that the people who choose not to vote for the ALP, the Greens, the Nationals or the Liberals are entitled to have a voice. They are entitled to have their vote represented. If somebody chooses to say, 'I agree with one individual more than with another individual. I'm going to give my preferences to that person,' then that is their right to do so. Of people who vote in the Senate, a large proportion chooses to vote below the line. The Liberals might have their first candidate in Victoria being whomever it may be, but the voter might say: 'Well, I don't particularly like that bloke or that woman. I'm going for the person who is No. 6 on the Liberal list, and then I'm going to go to the candidate who's No. 2 on the ALP list, because I concur with their beliefs more than I do with the other five on the Liberal ticket,' or vice versa. It is people's right to do that. Many Australians take up the option to do that. The vast majority of Australians just give it to the party to decide.

But to tell me that people care what the voting public thinks is disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that this is purely about self-interest. It is purely about political opportunism. The selective moral outrage and the toxic sanctimony of the Greens on this issue is just breathtaking. The government have jumped into bed with them. Ultimately they will rue the day that they went along with this.