Dio Wang (WA, Palmer United Party) Share this | Hansard source

The crossbench senators certainly have their differences and I would argue that even though there is only a relatively small number of us, we are a true broad church. But we do have one thing in common, one thing that justifies our existence—that is, that we are not rubber-stampers. We are here because 25 per cent of the Australian voters did not want rubber-stampers in the Senate, the house of review. Therefore, we of course do not always endorse the government's legislative agenda, but we do try to get to the bottom of the issues and approve, reject or amend legislation, according to our assessments. Sometimes in this very chamber, ministers would even praise the constructive approach we take. So why have they formed the 'Liberal National Greens Xenophon Union', the LNGXU, to wipe out the crossbench? Why, all of a sudden, has the same crossbench become the coalition's enemy?

I can tell you that being a crossbench senator is not easy. I am often expected to have a view on anything and everything. I am required to have discussions with ministers and shadow ministers on subjects they have researched for years. But that is okay. They may have earned more knowledge on such subjects than me while I was busy living a civilian life, but I enjoy those discussions because I can pick their brains. That is why when I came into this place, I came with a promise: all sides of politics always get a fair hearing from me. This has been the principle I operate under. I know some of the crossbench senators are fair and balanced too. However, despite our hard work and the voting record that speaks for itself, whenever the government fails to pass a bill, we are likely to be the ones who are blamed. Ironically, the Greens have suddenly become the Liberal-National coalition's new mates.

What does the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 do? Or should the real question be: what does the LNGXU want to do through this bill? There are all sorts of analyses with all sorts of predicted outcomes. One thing for sure is that there will be even fewer small party senators representing the growing number of voters who just do not want the established party machines. But, instead of working harder to win back voters hearts, the established parties want to ignore them and just make it harder for their votes to elect a senator from a smaller party.

Let me put it in the context of a footy game. The losing team, despite how badly they wish to turn the game around, should never, ever be allowed to change the rules to favour them nor, of course, should the winning team. In this place, however, the parliament is the rule maker and political parties are teams. One footy team cannot be allowed to change the rules. But in the parliament right now, one very unexpected team, the LNGXU, is changing the rules. The fact that one side of the chamber endorses these changes and the other side strongly opposes them speaks volumes about how fishy these changes are.

A lot has been said by many about what this bill does and how flawed it is. But there are genuine and much more important issues involving electoral voting that this bill does not even mention. For instance, Western Australians had to vote twice in the 2013 election because almost 1,400 ballot papers disappeared during the first election. How much extra did it cost taxpayers? It cost $20 million.

Multiple votes were another big issue in the 2013 election. The AEC sent inquiry letters to over 18,000 voters who had multiple marks recorded beside their names. Of those, some 8,000 cases were referred to the AFP, compared to only 19 such cases in 2010. About 10,000 multiple votes were attributed to official error. What does it mean? Who made the errors and, most importantly, how can such errors be stopped from happening again? There are the lost ballot papers, the multiple votes. Look at the numbers. It is reasonable to believe that the results of a few seats could be changed. I cannot even imagine how devastating it is to democracy for an electoral system that allows for these sorts of errors and odd behaviour to be exploited by evil minds.

Any genuine and legitimate electoral voting reform must give these issues the utmost priority to safeguard and defend our democracy. This bill, however, is silent on this matter, silent on protecting democracy. Yes, the crossbench is a broad church because of vast differences in our life experiences. But if the government has no clue at all on how to deal with one builder, one vet, one engineer, one blacksmith, one soldier, one sawmill worker and one footballer, how can the government deal with everyday Australians? Maybe here is a good starting point: focus your energy on being a good government. Make effort in proposing fair and reasonable bills. Let the Senate do its job without any further blackmailing and bullying. Thank you.