Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

Before getting back to the issue of advertising, let me just spell out again very slowly why the argument that Senator Wong has been advancing about how somehow 3.3 million people who voted for minor parties at the last election will now, as a matter of course, have their votes exhausted is a completely false, misleading and deceptive assertion.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

I will tell you why, Senator Conroy. It is because under our current system any voter voting above the line for the Senate has no choice but to fill in only one box above the line. One hundred per cent of voters voting in the Senate above the line can only vote one way, and that is to put a No. 1 in that box below or above the party of their choice and do nothing else. As soon as they do that, they lose control of their preferences. These preferences are directed by backroom operators and political party manipulators for the best interests of these parties but not according to the deliberate wishes and intent of voters. Voters right now, after they put in that No. 1 in that box above the line, immediately lose control of their preferences to group-voting-ticket arrangements, where these preferences are directed sometimes in three different directions.

Our proposal is for that to change. Under our proposal, an Australian voter voting for the Australian Greens, the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, the Palmer United Party, the Sex Party, the 'let's grow marijuana party', or the 'let's do this and that party' now will not be forced to just vote 1 above the line. That voter will now be able to vote 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. They can now number every single box above the line. They can determine what happens to their preferences.

It will not be Senator Conroy who determines what happens to Labor Party preferences. It will be the voter who puts a 1 in the box next to the Labor Party spot on the Senate ballot paper. And, if the person voting for the Labor Party in Victoria wants to put a 2 in the Liberal Party box, they will be able to do that, irrespective of what Senator Conroy might have done.

Incidentally, in the joint standing committee hearing inquiry Senator Conroy proved our point that the current system is non-transparent and does not give the voters the power they should have to direct their own preferences. At some point—questioning the federal director of the Liberal Party—this is what Senator Conroy said: 'Mr Nutt, there're only really 10 people around Australia who understand the science and the maths of preferencing. There are only really 10 people. Ha, ha. Isn't it funny? This is sort of like a boys club little thing where only a few of us really know how the science, the maths and the secret black arts of preference whispering go.' That proved the point on why we need the reforms that we are putting forward here. There should not just be 10 people around Australia, as Senator Conroy said, who understand what happens to preferences. Every single Australian voter should have control not just of their primary vote; they should have control of their preferences.

I say again what I said to Senator Wong before: it is preferable, if that is a voter's choice, for their vote to exhaust than for it to be directed by a political party to somebody that that voter did not intend to elect. It is up to the voter to determine how many preferences they want to issue above the line. The guidance on the ballot paper will be to vote above the line and at least number six boxes from 1 to 6 in order of your preference.

The voter is entitled to fill in as many boxes as they like. Indeed, if they only fill in one box, their vote will still be valid. But for Senator Wong, Senator Conroy and others to make this extrapolation, because there were 3.3 million people who voted 1 above the line for a minor party, that 100 per cent of those voters at the last election under the current system would have exhausted is false. Senator Conroy and Senator Wong do not know what choices voters may have made at the last election, if they had had the choice to issue preferences above the line—a choice they did not have at the last election—so the comparison, analogy and extrapolation that they are seeking to make is completely false, misleading and deceptive. It does not add to the debate or give you any credibility at all when you bring up this sort of fallacious argument.

Let me just touch on campaign advertising. If Senator Wong wants to start a debate on campaign advertising, she will lose, because the Labor Party has a disastrous record when it comes to this. I well remember when I was sitting on the other side of the chamber when the Gillard Labor government—actually, the Rudd and then the Gillard Labor government—committed $38.5 million to advertise a new tax which ended up costing the budget money. So the Labor Party initially came up with the resource super profits tax, which was meant to raise $12 billion. There was a big fallout: Prime Minister loses his job; new Prime Minister; negotiation behind closed doors with the three chief executives of the three biggest miners; new deal—$38.5 million worth of advertising for a tax that did not raise any money and ended up costing the budget money. The Labor government at the time spent all the money they thought it would raise and more but they advertised how it was going to raise all this money and do all these wonderful things.

Let me just remind you of another thing: if you want to have a conversation about campaign advertising, in Senate estimates in May 2014, the secretary of the finance department provided evidence that he was directed by the former Labor government during the caretaker period to conduct political advertising in relation to—that was when Labor was trying to create the impression that somehow they were committed to protecting our borders. Remember that? After 50,000 illegal arrivals into Australia, after all those boats had arrived illegally and after all those drownings, in the middle of an election campaign, Labor thought they needed to create the impression that they were actually going to do something about it, so they ran a campaign in contravention of the caretaker conventions.

Let me also just say: in each one of the first two financial years for which we have data in terms of how much has actually been spent under the coalition government, our expenditure on public campaigns has been well below that of any and every single year of the Labor government. So if you want to start having a conversation about campaign advertising, bring it on.

I have already answered the substantive question that Senator Wong put forward. Yes, there will be a public education campaign to explain to voters the benefits from the reforms that we have passed through the Senate, if the Senate passes them. Of course there will be a public education campaign to explain how these reforms will help empower Australian voters to determine what happens to their preferences when voting above and below the line. Of course there will be a public education campaign explaining how this reform will ensure that the next Senate election and future Senate election results will reflect the will of the Australian people.

As I have already indicated, the Electoral Commission will be adequately resourced. This is a matter where they receive resourcing in the lead-up to any election for the purposes of conducting the election, for the purposes of running relevant education campaigns. On this occasion, there will be an education campaign in relation to these specific reforms. We will not be disclosing the specific amount that will be allocated to it because, as the Electoral Commission has indicated on the public record already, there is a commercial-in-confidence component to this. There is a commercial interest component to this, and that is because the Electoral Commission will be contracting to external providers in relation to aspects of that campaign. Quite frankly, we are not going to undermine the commercial position of the Commonwealth by putting out into the public domain how much we have allocated for that purpose.

After the event, we will of course, as a government, be accountable—as we should be and as we must be—for how much was spent and for what purpose. As is usually the case, Senate estimates will no doubt probe the government on how that money was spent and how effective it was. I am sure that, after the next election in the ordinary course of events, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will review the conduct of that election. After reviewing the conduct of that election, it will make recommendations either on how the system has worked really well or how the system can be further improved at the edges. The government at that time will, as we always do, consider very carefully any findings and recommendations from that committee.

In the meantime, we are very confident that the Electoral Commission has got everything they need in order to be able to implement these reforms in a timely, efficient and effective manner as long as we provide them with three months between the passage of this legislation and implementation at an election. Of course it is absolutely the intention of the government to ensure that the Electoral Commission does have that time, and the expertise and wherewithal, to run an effective, well-targeted and appropriate education campaign to ensure that people across Australia well understand the great benefits that will flow from these reforms to them and how these reforms will empower them to direct what happens to their vote.