Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party opposes items 26 and 27 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(4) Schedule 1, items 26 and 27, page 7 (lines 16 to 21), to be opposed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that items 26 and 27 of schedule 1, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—moved Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party amendments (1) to (5) and (7) on sheet 7875 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 6 to 8), omit the definition of above the line, substitute:

  above the line: a square is printed above the line on a ballot paper if the square is printed on the ballot paper in accordance with subparagraph 210(3)(f)(ii) or (iii).

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 8), after the definition of above the line, insert:

  above the line candidate means:

  (a) two or more candidates who have made a joint request under section 168 for their names to be grouped on the ballot paper; or

  (b) a candidate that has made a request under section 168A for a square to be printed above the dividing line for the candidate.

(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), after item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 168(1)

  Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) Two or more candidates for election to the Senate may make a joint request that their names be grouped in the ballot papers.

1B After section 168

  Insert:

168A Candidate may request square be printed above the line

(1) A candidate for election to the Senate that has not joined in a request under section 168 in relation to the election may make a request that a square be printed on the ballot paper for the candidate above the dividing line.

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 12 to 15), omit the item, substitute:

2 Subsection 169(4)

  Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(4) Where:

  (a) a request has been made under subsection (1) in respect of a candidate in a Senate election; and

  (b) the candidate is an above the line candidate;

the request may include a further request that the name of the registered political party that endorsed the above the line candidate, or a composite name formed from the registered names of the registered political parties that endorsed the above the line candidate, be printed on the ballot papers adjacent to the square printed above the dividing line in relation to the above the line candidate.

(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 18 to 20), omit the item, substitute:

4 Subsection 169(4)

  Omit "in relation to the group in accordance with subsection 211(5)", substitute "above the line in relation to an above the line candidate".

(7) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 9, insert:

9A Subsection 213(1)

  Omit "of groups", substitute "of above the line candidates".

9B Subsection 213(1)

  Omit "or groups" (wherever occurring), substitute "or above the line candidates".

9C Subsection 213(2)

  Omit "a group", substitute "an above the line candidate that is a group".

9D Paragraph 214(2)(b)

  Omit "section 168", substitute "section 168 or 168A".

There is a bias against ungrouped independent candidates under the current proposal. These amendments are designed to address this. They also relate to recommendation 7 of my dissenting report, which this time I will read out because the recommendation is not that big. The recommendation is to:

Amend the Bill to ensure that all candidates are represented both above and below the line regardless of their party affiliation or independent status. All candidates should have equal opportunity to be represented above as well as below the line.

Under the current act, only an endorsed sitting senator can be represented above the line.

Let's consider if there had been a vote on marriage equality today, which there could have been. What if a senator had crossed the floor on the issue? As a result, they would no longer be preselected at the next election—I should not be so aggressive; as a result, they may not be preselected at the next election. Then, hypothetically, they left their party. Apparently that senator could run as an individual above the line as a sitting independent. The voters could then choose, whether they did the right thing or not. Once this bill is passed this safety net is abolished. This bill does not introduce any replacement safety net. The Senate should have some independence from party politics. So what option would they have to run as an individual independent? They could run below the line, and that is it. As we know, 97 per cent of the voters vote above the line. So they could find a sacrificial running mate in a group. Why? Because they need to access that 97 per cent of the votes cast above the line.

The above-the-line section of these amendments will allow for any independent to be represented above the line. Surely, if it is supposed to be a candidate-based system, we should allow them to access that 97 per cent of the votes that are cast. Should this amendment not be passed I do hope a High Court challenge considers this disparity. They should consider this bias that means that unless you are a political party you do not have a chance.

It is no wonder that we are seeing a decline in independent candidates and an increase in microparties since above-the-line voting was introduced. It encourages party politics. It does not encourage candidate-based politics. The way the rules are today, unless you are a political party, you do not stand a chance. This bill makes that situation even worse. If this was a truly democratic reform, this would be addressed. We are seeing political reform that only benefits the established political parties and not individual candidates.