Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I must say that the irony of getting a lecture from the Greens about getting on with it and allowing debate and serious consideration to continue when we ended up in this position because of the truncated process that the Greens and the government agreed to will never cease to amaze me.

I would like to provide a few comments on the ACT electoral system, which has been used by a number of speakers tonight as an example of how some of the concerns around informal voting will not occur because of the education program. What I have picked up from other speakers is that the advice around how to vote will be similar to what is provided on ACT ballot papers. I think it is worth reflecting on a couple of points here.

The ACT has had quite a complicated relationship with self-government. It started with the ACT community not wanting it. We then had to design an electoral system where the ALP did not win every single one of the seats. After two elections we then modified the D'Hondt system. The ACT moved to a Hare-Clark system, which is the system that has been talked about tonight. It included three electorates, two with five members and one with seven. All of that is true.It is also true that there are high levels of formal voting under this arrangement, although it is relevant to look back at when the system was brought in in 1995—the informal vote was actually very high, compared to what it is now. The informal vote reduced at each election, but in 1995, for example, there were electorates where the formal vote was only 91 per cent.

That has improved over the years, but I would say that when the minister quoted figures from the 2012 election, which did have record levels of formal voting, that was after 21 years of experience by the ACT community with that particular way of voting. Of course, the ACT community—the 'United Republic of the ACT'—is a highly-educated electorate. It is very engaged. There are considerable education programs that get put through before every election takes place and the electoral system has not changed in the last 21 years. So there are some differences in comparing and contrasting the ACT electoral system and the high level of formal voting with the changes that we are talking about here tonight.

When the system was brought in, the level of informal voting was relatively high—certainly, for the first election. It has improved every election since, but I do not think it is unreasonable to pose the question, as it has been put tonight, that changing an electoral system—a voting system—and potentially having very few weeks in which to educate the community about it will result in higher levels of formal votes being cast. The other difference, of course, is that we have fixed-term elections in the ACT. So you cannot muck around with, 'When will the election be called?'. So the education program that has led up to election day is actually very comprehensive and planned, and does not rely on the government of the day choosing the election day at their own convenience.

Another difference is that I would say the ballot paper does not have above-the-line voting. Essentially, if you are comparing it with the ballot paper that we are talking about tonight, the only choice for voters is to exercise their votes below the line, even though there is no line. It is also relevant to note that the introduction of the Hare-Clark system was done by referendum. So in order to move to this electoral system a referendum was held at the 1992 election, where the question was asked about whether the community wanted to stay with the modified D'Hondt system or move to the Hare-Clark system. That was endorsed by about 65 per cent.

There was also a three-year lead-in to that system being changed. The question was put to the community in 1992, the system was changed by law in 1994 and then entrenched at the 1995 election. I think it is also relevant to reflect for a moment, if we are going to use the ACT as an example of best practice—and that is not often the case in this chamber, but I am happy to take it when it happens!—on the electoral reform that has happened since this time. I know a little about it, having stood in the last four of those elections as a candidate. The electoral reform that has happened since 2012 has been conducted via extensive committee processes and extensive consultations with all parties in the assembly. Over the years that has included conservative Independents and Greens, and I think that in most cases the legislation that is brought to the chamber has been thoroughly discussed between the government and the opposition in an attempt to reach agreement prior to a debate being conducted. I think that is the way that you get the best outcome. Obviously, again, that stands in sharp contrast to what we have seen in the process that is being imposed on this chamber in dealing with the legislation that we are trying to deal with comprehensively tonight.

Some of the changes that we brought in in the ACT post the 2012 election dealt with things like donations, disclosures, transparency, accountability, full reporting disclosure and timely disclosure—all of the things that we will get to at some point this morning with some of the amendments that we have before us.

But I think that, if you are going to use the ACT as an example of best practice in terms of the information that will be provided, it is relevant to keep in mind these points. One is that there is no choice to vote above or below the line. Another is that a referendum actually led to the change; it was not a deal that was done between two parties in the assembly in the dark of night in a backroom deal and then rammed through in a couple of weeks. It was a change that was brought in and passed perhaps several weeks before people headed to an election. There was a three-year implementation of that change to the electoral system, which allowed a comprehensive education program. In terms of the voting that happens now, the fixed-term nature of the election dates, which takes away the ability of governments to determine an election date of their convenience, allows the ACT Electoral Commission to run a very comprehensive education program to reduce the opportunity for informal voting as much as it can.

I think those are significant differences to the position that we find ourselves in tonight. I think it is worth putting those on the record. The reason the ACT has done relatively well and has a high level of formal voting is the approach it has taken to electoral law reform, including the ability and the time to introduce that electoral law reform and the fact that, in most instances, it has managed to bring the political parties together. Where agreement can be reached, that agreement is focused on. If there are areas of disagreement, obviously they are agitated within the chamber. Ultimately, the change to the system that the minister refers to was brought in by a referendum. It was taken to the people at an election and agreed to as the preferred electoral system, which, again, is something that has not been done in this situation.