Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

A while ago we had a discussion about the whole issue of the New South Wales electoral system for the Legislative Council, where there is a requirement to simply put 1 above the line, but it is optional preferential—you can put more than one. We know from the experience in the New South Wales Legislative Council that the voting patterns are that about 80 per cent of voters simply put 1, so there is a high number of exhausted votes. In the ACT, by contrast, the position is that you are supposed to put 1 to 5 above the line, or indicate five preferences, or seven, depending on which electorate you are in. It is five preferences in Brindabella and Ginninderra and seven preferences in Molonglo.

The 2012 report on the ACT Legislative Assembly election, from Elections ACT, makes this point, which I want to have on the record. I think it is a reasonable benchmark for us to go by or at least aim for—this level of relatively low informality. The report, at page 76, says:

Around 97%-98% of all formal voters in 2012 followed the instructions on the ballot papers and indicated at least as many preferences as there were vacancies in the electorate. This result indicates that the instructions provided to voters were effective. Around 72% of formal voters indicated exactly as many preferences as there were vacancies in the electorate.

It goes on to say:

Around 26% of formal voters showed more than the instructed minimum number of preferences.

And it goes on to say:

These results indicate that, while around 7 out of 10 voters are inclined to cast "the recommended minimum" number of preferences, another 1 in 4 voters take the opportunity to show more preferences than the recommended minimum.

It also goes on to say:

The formality rules accept as formal ballot papers that indicate at least a unique first preference, even if the instructed minimum number of preferences is not shown. Around 1.7% of electors in Brindabella and 1.6% in Ginninderra and 2.5% of formal voters in Molonglo failed to number at least as many preferences as there were vacancies in the electorate. It is impossible to know how many of these votes were cast in the knowledge that these votes were not complying with the recommended minimum, but were nevertheless formal votes, and how many of these votes were the result of a failure to understand or follow the instructions. Whatever the reason, the number of ballot papers concerned is significant enough to make it worth keeping the current formality rules, while maintaining the general instruction to number at least as many candidates as there are vacancies in the electorate.

I put this on the record to show that that seems to be closer to the system that is being proposed in this legislation. And it is pretty heartening that in the ACT, with the savings provision, the overwhelming majority of voters follow the instructions to number the minimum number, either five in one two electorates or seven in another electorate. I just wanted to put that on the record, and I will let another speaker take us into the new day.