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

Following up from what Senator Xenophon has just said and to again correct Senator Wong and Senator Conroy's verballing of the evidence by Mr Green in front of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: they essentially sought to indicate that because there was more than 80 per cent of exhausted votes in the election in New South Wales with an optional preferential voting system then the same would necessarily be the case under our proposed model. That is, of course not true. As Mr Green very explicitly indicated in that evidence—I refer you to page 18 of the evidence on Tuesday, 1 March 2016—New South Wales ballot papers say:

… New South Wales ballot papers say : 'Just vote 1 if you want to. You may go on and do something else.'

Our ballot paper will give guidance to voters to number at least six boxes 1 to 6 if voting above the line and at least 12 boxes 1 to 12 when voting below the line. That is a very different arrangement. Mr Green also referred to the ACT in that same answer. Conveniently, both Senator Conroy and Senator Wong ignored that fact. He referred, indeed, to the ACT legislative assembly ballot paper:

It has something similar to what will be on the Senate ballot paper. It says, 'Number seven boxes from 1 to 7 in the order of your choice.' You may then go on and number from eight onwards. They only get about two per cent with less than seven preferences. So a ballot paper that says number up to that—

So it actually works. The way that Senator Conroy and Senator Wong sought to misrepresent Mr Green's evidence during the debate here tonight is another example of their attempt to mislead and deceive the Australian people.

Friday, 18 March 2016