Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I have been accused now by the minister of being misleading. I am simply quoting what Mr Green said.

Eighty-three per cent of ballot papers had only a single 1 above the line. There were 15.3 per cent that had above-the-line votes with preferences and … 1.7 per cent completed before the line.

There was some discussion about the Parliamentary Library advice, which I think was tabled in the other place. I want to read from that. This is about changes in voter behaviour, and I note that Senator Cormann said earlier that it was very hard to model voter behaviour—and I accept that; it is hard—but you can make a pretty educated judgement about what the likely outcome is, given how voters have behaved in other jurisdictions with similar voting systems and how they have behaved in the current voting system. This is what the Parliamentary Library had to say: 'Australian voters have spent 30 years voting 1 above the line, and it seems reasonable to assume that many people will continue to do so, despite the ballot paper instructions and any media campaigns.' This is what I mean when we talk about the abstract principle of voter choice—the slogan of voter choice—and ignore what will actually happen. What will actually happen will be a reflection of voter behaviour—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

I will take Senator Conroy's interjection. The thing is that I think the Greens actually know that. I think the Greens actually know that the vast majority of voters will continue to vote 1 above the line and that their votes will exhaust. But that is why the Greens want it. They want it because it will make sure that other parties and independents will find it much harder to enter this place. So all the talk from Senator Cormann and Senator Rhiannon that this is all about choice, when they know that the vast majority of Australians are likely to continue to vote 1 above the line, really demonstrates that it is just a slogan. The whole purpose of this is to ensure that there is less competition for the Greens in this place. They are pulling up the drawbridge in terms of anybody else entering—and, of course, from the coalition's perspective it makes it easier for more coalition senators to be elected.

I want to quote from a range of commentators, because it is useful to recognise that there have been concerns raised about this. I wanted to quote from Mr Gittens, but his is a very long quote, so maybe I will start with Mr Mackerras. He said: 'It is not about fairness what is going on here. It is about the reshaping of our party system. South Australia is to have a four-party system, Liberal on the right, Xenophon in the centre and Labor and Greens on the left. The rest of Australia is to have a three-party system—coalition, Labor and Greens.' It is not about fairness; it is about the reshaping of our party system—and that is the truth. That is the purpose of this reform.

I have seen Mr Paris again on Twitter saying that I cannot do maths. He asked: how can there be more coalition and more Labor senators? The point is that there will be fewer minor parties and independents. This is all about reshaping this place so that there is as closed a shop as the Liberals and Greens can make it. It will mean more coalition, Labor and Greens senators, but it will make it much harder for any minor parties or independents to get into this place. This is from a senator—Senator Rhiannon—who was first elected with less than three per cent of the vote. She is lecturing us all about the evils of preference arrangements.

The agenda here is not about choice—although that is a great slogan. The agenda here is not about fairness—

Senator Conroy interjecting—